House of Commons

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 7 November 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

16. What steps she is taking to strengthen the accreditation regime for colleges that admit foreign students.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Our fundamental reforms of student visas include a rigorous new inspection regime for private colleges. These tough new rules, coupled with robust enforcement action by the UK Border Agency, mean that more than 450 colleges have now lost their right to recruit international students under the points-based system. Only colleges offering a genuine, high-quality education will be able to sponsor international students in future.

[Mr Evennett]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply and commend her for the work she is doing in this area. Does she agree that the news last week that one in five colleges has lost its sponsor licence status shows that the accreditation scheme set up by her and her Department is working to stop the widespread abuse of the visa system?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what I have announced today is just the start. All private colleges will have to go through that rigorous accreditation system by the end of the year and those that fail the system will no longer be able to bring in international students.

[David Morris]

I am pleased to hear that the Government are successfully shutting off immigration through bogus colleges with the accreditation scheme, and I was glad to hear the answer to the previous question.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the accreditation scheme for colleges, but of course we are going further in taking action against individual students as well as restricting their rights. We have introduced new rules on English language and we have restricted students’ rights to work and to bring in family members. Next April we will close the post-study work route that has allowed graduates two years’ free access to the labour market here in the UK. We want to make sure that those who come to study are coming genuinely to study and not to work.

[Mark Pawsey]

We do need to cut out the incentives for people who abuse the student visa route, but there will of course be cases when a mature student wishes to be accompanied by their spouse and children of school age. What are the Government doing to prevent abuse of the system by those who see this as a loophole through which they believe they can bring any number of dependants into this country?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in my previous answer, we are taking action against students as well as against colleges. We are restricting the right for students to bring in family members. Only postgraduate students at universities can bring in dependants and we have changed the rules so that only those at universities and public colleges can work while they are studying. That means that we can continue to attract the brightest and best to our academic institutions while ensuring that we get rid of abuse.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I hope that the Home Secretary was not too busy at the weekend to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that was published on Friday—specifically paragraph 44, which expresses astonishment that the UK Border Agency has been unable to tell us how many students have been deported for breaching their leave and that it does not recognise the term, “bogus college”. Does she not think it extraordinary that the main agency dealing with these matters does not accept a term that she, I and the whole of Parliament have always used to describe such colleges?

[Mrs May]

I think that what matters is not the term we use but the action we take. That is why action is being taken to ensure that those colleges that have not been offering education to students are no longer able to bring in students and that we get rid of abuse in the student visa system, which has been a problem in this country for far too long.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I support any measures that root out any abuses in the immigration system, but what discussions has the Secretary of State had with universities such as the university of Warwick that have expressed concern about student numbers from abroad because they rely mainly on such students to exist?

[Mrs May]

Before we put our policy into place, we had significant discussions with representatives from the university sector. We continue to talk to universities about the impact of the student visa system that we have introduced, and that scheme ensures that institutions that are offering a genuine education are able to bring in the brightest and best students, but it is up to them and us to make it clear that students are still able to come and learn at our universities from overseas.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to address antisocial behaviour by gangs.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

17. What steps she is taking to tackle gang culture.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government’s approach to gang culture is set out in the “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report, which I outlined to the House last week. This marks the start of a cross-Government programme of work based on five areas: prevention, pathways out, punishment, partnership working and providing support.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to addressing gang and youth crime. Does she agree that the problem cannot be solved by Government alone, but that parents especially and local voluntary and community groups have an important part to play? Will she tell me what is being done to support communities to fight back?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that the Government recognise not only that this issue goes across various Government Departments, but that we need to work with the voluntary and community sector. In February I committed £4 million for the communities against guns, gangs, and knives fund. That is already supporting the work of more than 200 grass-roots projects across England and Wales that are working with young people, their families and local communities. In the report that I presented to Parliament last week I made a commitment that half of the £10 million of funding to tackle gang violence will go to the non-statutory sector.

[Ian Swales]

When a gang member leaves home armed with a knife, they do so with the ability to commit grievous bodily harm or even murder. What can the Home Secretary do to reduce the number of knives on our streets?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, we are tackling that in a number of ways. First, we have introduced changes in a new knife crime offence, which was introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill last week to tackle it from that end. At the other end we have made money available to the Ben Kinsella fund, and Brooke Kinsella produced a very good report for the Government, going round and identifying projects that work with young people to stop them carrying knives and prevent them from being a danger to others and to themselves.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Everybody wants to see tough action to tackle antisocial behaviour and I welcome what the Home Secretary said a moment ago about the involvement of council, Church and community groups in providing youth services. I have just come from a meeting with young people from Dudley, some of whom are in the Gallery now, and one of them asked me about Dudley council’s decision to cut spending for youth services. Does the Home Secretary think that antisocial behaviour is likely to increase or decrease as a result of cuts to spending on youth services?

[Mrs May]

What I think is important is that in every local community decisions are taken that are right for that local community about what is going to work. The Home Office and the Government are providing funding to a number of communities throughout the country to ensure that in many cases they can do excellent work with young people to ensure that we can reduce the number of knives that are carried on our streets. This is just the start. Further work will be done to try and counter the gang and youth violence which, sadly, blights too many of our communities.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In August the Prime Minister told me that the Home Secretary would meet social media companies to explore the role of the internet and technology in propagating gang culture. Will the right hon. Lady tell me what the outcome of those meetings was and what action will be taken?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to do so. I did indeed meet representatives of Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry. I met them with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and from the Metropolitan police, and we discussed a number of matters—how the police can actively use social media networks, and how the companies can look at their terms and conditions to see when they might take people off the network because they are breaching those terms and conditions. Subsequent meetings have been held on a one-to-one basis between the police and the individual companies.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

In discussions with a very senior, experienced officer, one of the issues that he highlighted was the lack of effective communication channels between the police and young people. To what extent does the Home Secretary believe that the ending gang and youth violence teams will be able to pick up and run with that issue?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There is some good work being done here in London, for example, with the Safer London Foundation, which is a charity backed by the Metropolitan police. That is an important aspect of the work that I hope the ending gang and youth violence team will be able to encourage at a local community level.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the level of knife crime.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment she has made of the level of knife crime.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

In the 12 months to June 2011, data collected by police forces in England and Wales indicate that 7% of relevant violent offences involved the use of a knife or a sharp instrument.

[Albert Owen]

Knife crime affects every community. In my constituency, following the senseless murder of Leon Jones who was just 21, a group was set up called Dump the Knife—Save a Life. That was young people working with the police and the local community. Can the Minister ensure that funding for such groups will be available in the future, following the announcement of a cut of some 60% in community budgets?

[Nick Herbert]

I appreciate the value of groups such as the one the hon. Gentleman describes and am happy to look at it. We have made £18 million of funding available for the next two years to support the police, local agencies and the voluntary sector in tackling knife, gun and gang-related violence, and I would be happy to talk with him about the project.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to Ministers for supporting the “Carry a basketball not a blade” initiative in my constituency, but knife crime has risen in London every year since the current Mayor was elected. What more will the Minister do to press the Mayor to get on top of this terrible problem in London?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that knife crime is a serious concern, which is why the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just pointed out, have introduced a new offence of aggravated carrying of a knife. We need to send clear signals and there needs to be effective police action. He knows that the Mayor has been promoting that in London with his knife crime plan, Operation Blade, and we will continue to support those efforts.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is not the key to cutting knife crime the sending of a clear social message that anyone who commits a crime with a knife or gun will go to prison, actions that this Government have taken, along with the excellent ideas that Brooke Kinsella has come up with?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about tough enforcement and sending a clear signal that those who carry knives and use them in a threatening manner will receive a custodial sentence, which we are legislating for, and about the programmes that work with communities to deter people from using knives. That is what Brooke Kinsella’s excellent report focused on.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the past 10 days alone victims of knife crime have included a poppy seller in Sussex, a father attending a first birthday party in Mitcham and a young man trying to stop a fight in Walthamstow on Friday night. Given the scale of cuts to policing and community safety budgets that the Government are implementing under the Home Secretary’s watch, does she think that knife crime will continue to go up or go down next year?

[Nick Herbert]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about knife crime, which is why we are introducing the measures I have announced on strong enforcement and the important community programmes to deter people from carrying knives, but I notice that her question did not include a single positive proposal for dealing with knife crime, other than the usual Labour party proposal, which is to spend more money.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

4. What progress she has made in increasing the level of collaboration between police forces.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

15. What progress she has made in increasing the level of collaboration between police forces.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I welcome the increasing levels of collaboration between police forces and expect more forces to consider how to work together to bring improvements and save money. The Government provide funding to support regional collaborations to tackle organised crime and have strengthened the duty to collaborate through the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does she agree that the collaboration between West Mercia police and Warwickshire police, through their human resources department, produces exactly the kind of saving that can be made without resorting to the compulsory mergers advocated by the previous Government?

[Mrs May]

Indeed, and I commend my hon. Friend’s police force for the work it is doing in collaboration. Many forces across the country are collaborating in a number of areas. We are able to ensure that we can get the benefits of collaboration without forcing mergers on police forces, which the Labour party tried to do when it was in government.

[Tony Baldry]

Thames Valley police is collaborating in various ways with no fewer than six other forces, and the work it is doing with the Hampshire constabulary alone is saving £9 million a year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for police forces to save money without that having any impact on front-line policing?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is possible. Thames Valley and Hampshire police are showing that, as are other forces up and down the country. Indeed, in many cases they will not only be saving money, but may be providing a more effective service.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

One area where collaboration between forces would be welcome is in dealing with metal theft, which is growing across the country. For example, a business in my constituency lost its industrial process, which meant that it then lost business. What will Ministers do to ensure that collaboration increases and, more importantly, when will they introduce legislation to deal with metal theft?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has raised a matter of serious concern to a great number of Members, particularly given that we have seen not only the impact on the economy, but the appalling incidence of theft of metal plaques from war memorials, which I am sure has shocked everyone in the House. We are discussing with ACPO and others what legislative changes to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 might be needed and we are talking with the police about what action can be taken better to identify the rogue dealers in advance of any changes to the legislation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Nobody will oppose sensible collaborations, but with last week’s report of a 7% rise in theft and a 10% rise in household burglary reported, coupled with a projected loss of 16,000 police officers, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to tell us the exact total savings from such collaborations nationally and the remaining national funding shortfall after those collaborations have saved some money—if only so that the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is able to stop her police cuts campaign quickly.

[Mrs May]

Discussions are taking place between police forces on exactly how much money can be saved by such collaborations, and better approaches to police procurement and to IT, for example, will help to save £380 million. But I am very sorry because it sounds as if yet again the Labour party opposes action to save money while ensuring that the police are able to maintain their services.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to prevent abuse of the family migration route into the UK.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

This Government are determined to bring net migration back to sustainable levels, and to bring a sense of fairness back to our immigration system. That is why we consulted on new measures to prevent the abuse of family migration, to promote integration and to reduce burdens on the taxpayer.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. At our party conference the Home Secretary outlined plans to amend the immigration rules better to balance the right to a family life with the wider public interest in controlling immigration. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of immigrants using article 8 of the European convention on human rights to remain in the United Kingdom?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the UK Border Agency took a snapshot, reviewing in detail those appeals by foreign criminals against deportation which were determined in October to December last year. There were 551, of which 162 were successful, and of those 99—61%—were allowed on article 8 grounds. That is precisely why we will revise the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing foreign nationals who are convicted of a criminal offence and those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.

[Mr Baron]

Amid the UK Border Agency’s problems with handling asylum cases, will the Minister assure the House that spouses coming to live here in the UK will have to show a commitment to speak and learn English—for their benefit as well as the benefit of society as a whole?

[Damian Green]

Both those points are right: such an approach is not just for the benefit of the individual; it is absolutely for the benefit of the community that they enter. That is why last November we introduced requirements that spouses and partners must demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language before they are granted a marriage visa. It is reasonable that anyone intending to live in the UK should understand English so that they can integrate fully and participate fully in life in this country.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Given the passport control fiasco exposed over the past few days, does the Minister seriously still expect us to accept, as he said seven days ago:

“The Government is doing more than ever before to protect the UK’s borders”?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to make a statement on that matter later, when it can be dealt with in detail, but in his honest moments he will accept that one of the biggest problems—one of the biggest shambles—that this Government inherited was the immigration system that the previous Government left us, and that is what we are getting to grips with now.

[Kate Green]

(Stratford and Urmston) (Lab): Access to good quality expert advice is important to support legitimate applicants and to ensure that those who should not be here can be advised quickly that they have no case, but constituents report to me that such advice is in increasingly short supply. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that good quality advisers remain in place, particularly following the Government’s cuts to legal aid?

[Damian Green]

The Government’s cuts to legal aid specifically do not apply to asylum cases, because we accept that genuine asylum seekers will be in need of proper legal advice, but across the House it is agreed that some of the legal advice available in immigration cases, whether asylum or general immigration cases, is frankly substandard. That is why, when looking at our support for the legal aid system, which was yet another public spending regime that ran out of control under the previous Government, we have specifically protected the most vulnerable.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

All of us want to try to avoid abuse of all the immigration systems, but does the Minister accept that our high-tech industries in particular rely on key individuals from overseas? It is very important to be able to attract those individuals, and some of these immigration changes risk deterring them from coming here. What steps will he take to ensure that we still get the key international people we need?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that we have already taken those steps. Indeed we are bringing down the number of people coming here but, at the same time, we are differentiating more effectively, so that the brightest and the best can continue to come here. That is why we have created the new investors and entrepreneurs visas, which have doubled the number of entrepreneurs who have come into this country over the course of this year, and that is why we have set up the exceptional talent route.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government are committed to tackling the corrosive impact of antisocial behaviour. We are ensuring that the police and other agencies have faster more effective powers, that complaints are dealt with more responsibly and that the public have much clearer information about incidents occurring in their local area.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but constituents and local police have raised with me their frustration at the difficulties that local police have in dispersing groups of antisocial individuals, who cause so much misery for their victims by their actions. The Home Office has consulted on giving front-line police the power to direct antisocial individuals and groups away from specific areas, but will the Minister update the House today on whether those proposals will be implemented and, if so, when?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I certainly recognise the issues that many communities face from antisocial behaviour and the fact it perhaps was not previously taken as seriously as it should have been. We propose to combine the most effective elements of the various dispersal powers available to the police into a single simpler police power to direct people away from an area where they are committing or are likely to commit antisocial behaviour. We intend to legislate on the new powers at the earliest opportunity.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, vandalism, antisocial behaviour and theft from war memorials repulse everybody, particularly in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday. Given that much of that activity is related to the illegal metal trade, why will Ministers not bring forward legislation right away? What is the hold-up?

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Front Bench. I certainly agree with her that the attacks on war memorials in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday are absolutely despicable. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning those shocking crimes. The Home Secretary has mentioned a number of steps that the Government are already taking. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan. Steps are already under way and we are working with other Departments to take further action as well.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Government are bringing forward a package of measures to ensure that alcohol is no longer the driver of crime and disorder that it has been over the past decade. Measures range from giving more powers to local communities over licensing decisions, to cracking down on those selling alcohol to children and trialling a sobriety scheme to reduce offending. Those provisions are in addition to the introduction of wider measures to address antisocial behaviour.

[Iain Stewart]

In 2007, just five people were prosecuted for attempting to buy alcohol under age. Will my hon. Friend set out in a bit more detail what steps he is taking to restrict the sale of alcohol in retail outlets to those who are under age?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has raised a very important point on the whole issue of the irresponsibility of alcohol being sold to children. We have taken steps to double the maximum fine to those who are selling alcohol persistently to under-age children to £20,000, and to increase the powers of the police and local councils to close such premises down permanently. We are working with other Departments, and the Department of Health is leading on an alcohol strategy that will take into account further issues. I am under no illusions about the important role that parents and schools also have, which is why further action is being taken.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to reduce alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have stated clearly their intention to ban below-cost sales, with the first measure being the banning of sales below duty plus VAT. I can confirm to him that those proposals will be implemented on 1 April next year.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge the Minister to concentrate on tough penalties for people who get involved in alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour instead of introducing this rather soppy, wishy-washy, nanny-state nonsense of minimum pricing of alcohol?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his typical contribution to these debates. In dealing with issues of alcohol, we need to ensure that we have robust powers to deal with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, as we are doing. We also need to deal with pricing, which is why we are banning below-cost sales, and with prevention, which is why we will be taking further action in relation to schools, parents and the health service.

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Connarty is not here, so I call Mark Hendrick. [Interruption.] Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) to say that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) wants to ask about the food industry, but the question on the Order Paper is not about the food industry.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of the London 2012 Olympics on the level of illegal immigration to provide forced labour in the food sector (a) in London and (b) nationwide.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I was looking forward to that question as well, Mr Speaker.

The UK Border Agency does not have evidence of an increase in forced labour in the food sector as a result of the forthcoming London 2012 Olympics. However, the agency assesses, remains alert to, and, where appropriate, acts on a wide variety of immigration threats and risks specifically associated with the Olympics.

[Mark Hendrick]

The Government’s wait-and-see approach is dangerous. When Greece hosted the Olympics in 2004 and Germany held the World cup in 2006, the authorities adopted a forward-thinking strategy that included extra training for police to spot trafficking, and PR campaigns to raise awareness among the public. Will the Government consider adopting a more proactive strategy ahead of the games to ensure that human trafficking does not become part of the London 2012 legacy?

[Damian Green]

I am very aware of the importance of this issue, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that a strategy has been in place for some time. For example, the Olympic project team at UKBA has carried out over 8,000 identity assurance checks on contractors and workers on the Olympic site and have arrested 20 people as a result in the current financial year alone. In total, the team have carried out over 60,000 ID assurance checks and made over 300 arrests since 2008. The kind of proactive strategy that the hon. Gentleman wants is very much in operation..

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On this question, the wish of the right hon. Gentleman might or might not be satisfied.

[Nicholas Soames]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Olympic year, the work of the border agency will be of the first importance? Does he agree, since the agency is likely to come in for some stick later on this afternoon, that its individual officers do a remarkable, vital and very important job for this country, and that that needs to be officially recognised?

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister should answer in the context of the London 2010 Olympics, or possibly in the context of forced labour in the food sector, in London or elsewhere.

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that UKBA officers do a vital job very conscientiously. It is particularly important that they continue to do that and, if possible, to enhance their services in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics. Part of that will involve ensuring that no abuse occurs in the food industry.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

11. What estimate she has made of the future number of staff employed by the UK Border Agency.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Our priority remains to secure the border and to control migration while we help to reduce the public deficit. We expect to have reduced by about 5,200 posts from the start of the review period to around 18,000 by March 2015. We are on track to meet our staff reduction target.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister tell us how many of those 5,200 staff are being cut from the front line of the border force?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady will know that later this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement covering the issues that she is interested in. The reductions in staffing are not affecting the front line because we are improving the front line by, for instance, having airline liaison officers overseas. Over the past few years, that has prevented 60,000 people whom we did not want to travel from travelling in the first place. The use of facial recognition technology and e-gates also makes our borders more secure.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that the effectiveness of our front-line border controls will not be undermined by pressure to reduce queues at airports?

[Damian Green]

As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), it is important to have intelligent border controls, to use technology and to put the right people in the right places so that we can keep our borders secure. Those are elements of this Government’s transformation of the UKBA to sort out the shambles that we inherited.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister may not know how many people are being removed from the border force, but I do. The numbers are 886 in this financial year and 1,552 before the next general election. He boasts that he is getting a grip, but this year there have been waits of many hours, EU nationals have been waved through in their hundreds and non-EU nationals have waltzed into the country without so much as a by your leave. We would absolutely adore it if he got a grip. Can he really say, hand on heart, that his cuts have nothing to do with the corners that are being cut with our security?

[Damian Green]

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as shadow Minister for Immigration. I remember fondly when, in government, he talked about the

“huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers”—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 15.]

complaining about immigration. I am sure that he will provide a lot of that in future years. I am sorry, but I have already answered his question. It is the way in which we use people that makes our borders more secure. I suggest that he pauses before he keeps using the phrase about waving people through, because nobody has been waved through the border. However, under the previous Government, as he will hear from the Home Secretary later, people were waved through.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

12. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of policing in Tottenham on the first night of the public disorder of August 2011, following the Metropolitan Police Service statement of 24 October 2011.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned the chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor, to undertake an urgent review of public order policing in the five forces most affected by the disorder, which we expect to receive shortly. We will ensure that the lessons from that review are taken forward.

[Mr Lammy]

I am surprised that the Minister did not comment on the statement of the Metropolitan police, which said that their policing on the first night of the riots was not good at all. He will recognise the frustration and anger in Tottenham at the scale of the damage to Tottenham High road. What will he and his Department do to encourage other Departments to ensure that my constituency is regenerated?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is right for us to wait for the report by the independent inspectorate and to take careful note of what it says about the policing that took place. Clearly things did go wrong and we have to learn the lessons. The Government are committed to doing so as, I am sure, are the Metropolitan police. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this is not just about the security response, but about the social response and the preventive measures, which I know the right hon. Gentleman is keen to promote, that can deal with this situation and stop such things happening again.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

18. What financial support she is providing to London boroughs to tackle gang-related issues.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The police, local government and voluntary groups in London currently receive Home Office funding to tackle gang, gun and knife crime as part of the communities against guns, gangs and knives programme, which was announced in February. Further support will be available next year for local areas across the country to implement sustainable approaches to tackling gang violence.

[Meg Hillier]

In Hackney, the integrated gangs intervention unit has overseen a major reduction in gang violence. It is funded from the base budget of the council, but that might be more challenging in future years. What work is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that boroughs across London are working together and providing funding for similar initiatives so that we do not see gangs being tackled in one area only for them to bubble up in another?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has made an important point about the importance of tackling this problem across the board. In talking to the Metropolitan police and in the work that will be done by the ending gang and youth violence team that the Home office is setting up at a local community level, we will incorporate the need to ensure that this work does not simply move gangs on to other parts of London. Funding is being focused on areas where there are particular problems. Hackney is in receipt of several amounts of funding for such projects. I fully take on board the hon. Lady’s point and we will look at it in our further work.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

19. Whether she plans to reassess the police funding settlement for 2012-13.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The spending review settlement for the police is challenging but manageable, and we will not reopen the debate on the overall level of reductions. As part of the provisional settlement process for 2012-13 we will provide provisional allocations for police authorities, which will be subject to consultation before parliamentary approval.

[Ian Lavery]

Some 16,000 jobs nationally and 627 in the Northumbria police force are to be slashed. Will the Minister look again at the police funding settlement to prevent those huge cuts in front-line services in the police force?

[Nick Herbert]

I have explained that we are not in a position to reconsider the four-year funding allocation that has been made, because we have to deal with the deficit. Opposition Members simply do not seem to understand that. The police can make savings in ways that protect front-line services, as we heard earlier, and we are committed to ensuring that that continues to be the case.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

In its White Paper, the Home Office said that from 2012-13, the police and crime panels would have the power to trigger a referendum on a policing precept recommended by the police and crime commissioner. When did the Secretary of State decide that that power would be better exercised by herself?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. I have committed to meeting him to discuss the issue, but we believe it important both that the panel has the power of veto over an excessive precept set by a police and crime commissioner, which has now been legislated for, and that the public have the ability to reject an excessive precept through the referendum lock. That is the subject of separate measures that are before the House in the Localism Bill.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

20. What estimate she has made of the number of police officers who will be in post in 2015.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

As I have just explained to the House, we have set a challenging but manageable funding settlement for the police service. It is for the chief constable and the police authority in each force to determine the number of police officers that are deployed given the available resources.

[Graeme Morrice]

The public disorder of August showed us that police numbers count, along with forces throughout the United Kingdom working closely together on major issues. Does not the Minister see therefore how foolish it is to cut more than 16,000 police officers by 2015—the same number that brought order to London during the summer riots?

[Nick Herbert]

As I have said, police forces must make savings because we have to deal with the deficit, but they can do so in a way that protects front-line policing. There is no reason why there should be damage to the front line if they drive savings elsewhere. I have pointed out to the House before, and will do so again, that a third of human resources in police forces are not on the front line. Some 25,000 police officers are in back-room jobs. That is where police forces should begin.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

In making the police settlement and deploying the police’s forces, will the Minister ensure that rural police forces have an element of funding related to rurality and sparsity?

[Nick Herbert]

We do ensure that, and I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the issue. I will, in fact, be speaking about rural crime at an Association of Chief Police Officers conference later this week. It is important that we tackle such matters, and they will all be taken into account when we consider the specific allocations for police forces for the third and fourth years of the spending round.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister would like to join me in welcoming the 500 extra police community support officers pledged by the Welsh Assembly Government. The ones in Gwent are being recruited at the moment. Does he agree that they will be a really valuable help in tackling antisocial behaviour in Welsh communities, unlike the Government’s cuts in front-line policing?

[Nick Herbert]

If I can ignore the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, I will say that PCSOs play an important role in helping to ensure that we tackle crime and maintain confidence in communities. Last week the Home Secretary and I, and the shadow Home Secretary and her shadow Ministers, were able to attend the Jane’s Police Review community policing awards, which recognised the role of PCSOs and others, and it is important that we continue to recognise that role.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

21. What consideration she has given to the funding formula which allocates funding to each police authority.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The police allocation formula is a robust and credible tool for estimating police work load in police force areas. It continues to be used to allocate the majority of central Government funding that goes to police authorities.

[Alun Cairns]

The South Wales police force area includes Cardiff, which, as a capital city, has additional civic responsibilities, which obviously mean that the police force incurs ongoing costs. Will the Minister agree to look at that factor and to meet me to consider it further?

[Nick Herbert]

I will continue to look at that factor, and am happy to agree to meet my hon. Friend—other hon. and right hon. Members have met me to discuss that issue. I should point out that forces can bid for funds through special grants for events or unforeseen circumstances. That is restricted to expenditure exceeding 1% of a force’s annual budget, but South Wales police has benefited from such awards in the past.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

A number of hon. and right hon. Members have referred to reports in the past few days on the UK border force. As the Home Office has already said, a senior official at the UK border force, Brodie Clark, has been suspended for acting without ministerial sanction, but I will make a statement to the House later today.

[Philip Davies]

Of all the people who were arrested and convicted as a result of the riots across the country in the summer, what estimate has the Home Secretary made of the number who were arrested and charged through the police use of CCTV and DNA?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is returning to topics that I know he has pursued for some considerable time. Obviously, there was significant use of CCTV. That is why this Government continue to support its use.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to instigate an inquiry into border control this summer, which we will discuss shortly, but let me ask her a security question: what is her estimate of the number of people who passed into Britain through our ports and airports this summer under the reduced security and passport regime that the UK Border Agency was operating?

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady knows, I will make a full statement to the House later this afternoon, and will have a full opportunity to answer her questions then, but I should like to make a few things clear. In the past, under the last Government, some security checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border, including one instance when local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made—not even cursory checks of passports.

To prevent that from happening again and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that UKBA could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers. We have since discovered that Brodie Clark, the head of the UK border force, authorised the wider relaxation of border controls without ministerial sanction. As I said, I shall make a statement to the House later today and will answer questions on this matter fully then.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary did not answer my question on how many people went through under the reduced security regime, and I am concerned that she does not know. As she will know, previously, both Labour and Conservative Ministers have committed to the roll-out of e-Borders so that proper screening could be available for everyone entering and leaving the country. She seems to be rolling that system back, not forward. When describing the rolling back of checks for EU citizens this summer, a UKBA staff member told me, “We were told not to check children travelling with family groups. That was ridiculous. Supposing a man…had taken them away from their mother and they were wards of court, they would pass through undetected. I have detected many wards of court simply by running them through the warnings index.”

The Home Secretary took the decision to reduce the checks for EU citizens this summer. Why did she do so?

[Mrs May]

As I have indicated to the right hon. Lady, I shall set out exactly what decisions were taken in my statement to the House later today. I indicated in my first answer to her that we were looking at targeting intelligence-led checks on higher risk categories of travellers. She referred to e-Borders, but this has nothing to do with e-Borders. When we took office, we had to stop the contract with the contractor that the last Labour Government agreed for e-Borders because it was significantly behind schedule in putting it in place.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

T2. What steps is the Minister taking to alert parents to signs of grooming being forced on to innocent children by either their family or close friends, which is completely unacceptable?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The crime of child sexual exploitation is utterly appalling and reprehensible, and I well understand why my hon. Friend is raising this issue, given the impact that such incidents have had in Derbyshire. I pay tribute to the work of Derbyshire police through Operation Retriever. I note that their work was recognised at the police review event in the past few days. Awareness-raising is done through the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s thinkuknow programme, which delivers prevention messages directly into schools and is helping to raise awareness of this issue among parents and young people. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children and families, is developing an action plan to safeguard children and young people from sexual exploitation, which will be published shortly. Raising awareness among parents of this terrible form of abuse will be an important element of that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T5. South Wales police have an excellent programme for tackling domestic violence, working with local authorities, health authorities and voluntary groups. What new advice and guidance will be issued to them following the statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), that the Government did not consider an investigation by the police or the police having been called out as providing sufficient clear objective evidence that domestic violence had occurred?

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

We will be asking the, the idea that the police—I am sorry, but I did not hear the question properly. I apologise. Is the hon. Lady asking about the evidence needed to get legal aid for legal advice on domestic violence? I apologise to her. I did not hear the question.

[Mr Speaker]

We must move on.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T3. In welcoming the latest departmental developments regarding the police crime mapping website, which my constituents are beginning to learn to use, does the Minister agree that this marks the beginning of a real step-change improvement in police transparency and hopefully accountability to local communities?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. POLICE.uk, our street-level crime mapping website, has received more than 430 million hits since its launch at the beginning of the year, which translates to well over 40 million visits. We are adding new information on crime types and, from next year, justice outcomes. It is an important part of our transparency programme, and it demonstrates that the public want, and make use of, this information.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. When does the Home Secretary intend to review the definition of an “air weapon” under the Firearms Act 1968?

[Mrs May]

I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I did not actually hear the question. I understand that he said “air weapons”. Is that right?

[Tom Greatrex]

indicated assent.

[Mrs May]

May I write to the hon. Gentleman and set it out to him clearly?

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

T4. Organised crime costs the British economy £40 billion a year and affects families, businesses and local communities. What action is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to recover criminal assets and the proceeds of crime?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue of criminal finances. We are determined that criminal proceeds will be taken away from those who commit these appalling offences. In total, using powers such as asset denial and by targeting money launderers, the agencies involved denied criminals more than £1 billion last year. However, we want to take further action, which is why we are setting up the National Crime Agency, and we also want to make asset-recovery quicker, more robust and more effective in order to address the point that he rightly highlighted.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

T9. I know that the Home Secretary is reluctant to answer any questions on the UK Border Agency in advance of her statement, but does she accept that 18 months into this Government, the decisions taken on Britain’s borders are hers and hers alone, and that she should make no attempt to blame the previous Government for the mess that we see now?

[Mrs May]

I am willing to stand here and take responsibility for the decisions that I have taken. I only wish that the Opposition were willing to stand up in this House and take responsibility for the decisions that they took when they were in government.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T6. Please listen carefully; I will say this only once. In the future assessment of police numbers and funding formulae, have any discussions taken place with the Ministry of Defence about the huge cuts in the MOD police? In the case of the Colchester garrison, the last Labour Government managed to cut its 30 officers to three, which has affected the Essex police.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think anybody has ever had any trouble hearing the hon. Member for Colchester, even some miles away.

[Nick Herbert]

As my hon. Friend knows, the MOD police are not the responsibility of the Home Office; they are the responsibility of the MOD. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with them.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister promised that all legitimate claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 following the recent riots would be paid. I understand that a commitment has been made to ensure that the Metropolitan police will see its money, whereas Greater Manchester police authority is still struggling to get an answer from the Home Office. Can the Home Secretary or one of her Ministers give an answer today?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will indeed cover claims made under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, but as I am sure he will appreciate, it is necessary to check and verify those claims. We have been generous with the definition that we have used, but there is still a necessary process to go through—for example, to identify the exact value of the property lost.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T8. Is the Minister aware that the average fine in 2010 for people caught driving without motor insurance in Lincolnshire was £213, down from £233 in 2008, when the average cost of fully comprehensive motor insurance premiums for my constituents is around £650, having risen on average by 40% in the same two years? Does he agree that such fines do nothing to dissuade potential or existing offenders from driving without insurance? What plans do the Government have to address the situation?

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue, about which I want to talk to the Department for Transport. Uninsured driving already raises the cost of premiums for honest motorists to the tune of £30. Individual fines are a matter for magistrates, but it is important that we look at this matter.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to the Home Secretary’s reply about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, if insurance companies are successful in pressing claims for the cost of business interruption, will those costs also be included in the financial settlement?

[Mrs May]

I do not think that business interruption is being looked at, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and set out exactly what we are doing in relation to the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and what criteria are being followed to ensure that police forces and others are paid the necessary sums.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T10. My constituent Joanne Bryce, whose sister Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s murder was uncovered in Cambridgeshire in December 1998, has worked tirelessly to find out why the case has been so appallingly mishandled by the local constabulary, but she and I have been frustrated at every turn. Will the Policing Minister meet me to discuss the issue with my constituent?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes, of course I will meet my hon. Friend. I appreciate his concern and that of his constituent about the matter; the problem is that the case was investigated by the precursor of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is an obstacle, but I will indeed discuss the case with him.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has recently launched a consultation on the disclosure of previous convictions of serial perpetrators of domestic violence, following the tragic murder of Clare Wood in my constituency and the courageous campaign by her father, Michael Brown. Will the Home Secretary tell me whether there will be early legislation following the consultation to implement the scheme and prevent further tragic deaths like that of Clare Wood?

[Mrs May]

It is certainly our intention to act as soon as possible on the basis of the consultation. The right hon. Lady will be aware that certain powers are already available to the police to make disclosures to individuals. The consultation will look at whether further powers are necessary. I, too, pay tribute to Michael Brown for the campaign that he is running. He is very brave to do so in the face of such tragic circumstances.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

One of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour that my constituents tell me about involves people’s lifestyles and actions having a really detrimental effect on their neighbours’ quality of life. What proposals are the Government bringing forward to help the police and local authorities to deal with this problem?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend has rightly said, these are local issues that deserve local solutions. There has been a consultation on speeding up the eviction of antisocial tenants; it closes today. The rights of a tenancy bring with them responsibilities, and we will be reflecting on that consultation in due course, once the responses are finalised.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

What mechanisms, if any, are being put in place to ensure that staff and their representatives are given an opportunity to express their concerns about problems with the functions of the UK Border Agency?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are always willing to hear from members of staff about any concerns that they might have, and about any proposals for the better operation of the UK Border Agency. Indeed, I was in Turkey only a matter of days ago, listening to those who were making visa decisions in the embassy there, and hearing directly from them their concerns and their ideas for making things better.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following an illegal encampment of 13 caravans in Harlow town centre at the weekend, Essex police have refused to be the lead agency in removing the trespassers because they are following Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines. Will the Minister confirm that ACPO guidance is no substitute for the police enforcing the law, rather than forcing Harlow council to go through a lengthy court process?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. First, however, may I commend Essex police for the action that they took alongside Basildon council in the operation at Dale Farm? We are looking at whether we need to give the police extra powers in relation to the clearing of encampments and other incursions on to land. Currently, assuming that the incursion is not stopping the normal life of the community, the landowner has to take legal action. If it is stopping the normal life of the community, the police do have some powers. This matter concerns a great many people, and we are actively looking into it.

Petition

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

A couple of weeks ago, Andy Yeadon of John Leggott college and Stephen Buck and John Outhwaite of Frederick Gough school brought a petition to me that I should like to place before the House on their behalf and that of the other petitioners from John Leggott college and Frederick Gough school who have signed it.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of staff at John Leggott College, Scunthorpe, and Frederick Gough School, Scunthorpe,

Declares that the Petitioners note that the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, along with other schemes, was reformed in 2007 to ensure sustainability and viability for the long term, declares that the Petitioners reject the Government’s claim that such schemes are unaffordable and a drain on taxpayers, further declares that the Petitioners believe that proposed changes to public sector pensions, including those of teachers, lecturers, principles and head teachers working in maintained schools, academics, independent schools and teaching colleges are unjustified and declares that the Petitioners believe that continuing government changes to these pensions will be deeply damaging to staff recruitment, retention, mobility, morale and motivation and will jeopardise the education of all children and young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000974]

G20

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

15:32

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s G20 summit. There were three key aspects to the summit. First, agreement on an action plan for growth and jobs, with specific countries agreeing to do specific things in order to maximise overall growth in the world economy. Secondly, the G20 continued with its work to identify and remove some of the key obstacles to growth, including imbalances between surplus and deficit countries, to stop the slide to protectionism, to improve global governance, and to protect the world’s poorest from the current economic problems. Thirdly, there was, of course, the main issue of instability in the eurozone. Let me take each in turn.

First, the action plan for growth and jobs. This includes many of the things that Britain is already doing, from fiscal consolidation and monetary activism to removing the barriers in the way of business and job creation. The G20 recognised yet again the importance of implementing

“clear, credible and specific measures to achieve fiscal consolidation.”

It also clearly identified a group of countries that have the space to borrow for additional discretionary measures. I have to tell any Members of the House who would like to see the UK borrow more that no one was proposing that the UK should be in that group of countries. We are determined to deal with our debts, not to leave them to our children and grandchildren. The need to press on with our plan for fiscal consolidation has now been recognised by the G20, as well as by the International Monetary Fund and the OECD.

Secondly, obstacles to growth. The imbalances that did so much damage in the run-up to 2008 are growing again. This matters, because if we are to maximise global growth and avoid some of the speculative bubbles of the past, countries with a trade surplus need to increase domestic demand and ensure that they keep their markets open, while those with a trade deficit have to undertake structural reforms to improve competitiveness. There was some real progress. For instance, Russia is making changes to its foreign exchange regime, and China agreed to increase its exchange rate flexibility. Both of those are reflected in the communiqué, but more needs to be done.

The greatest mistake that the global economy could make is to enter into a slide towards protectionism. The World Trade Organisation report sets out all the protectionist measures that have been taken in G20 countries over the last year, and they are a cause for concern. So the G20 reaffirmed its pledge not to take protectionist actions, committed again to roll back any new protectionist measures that might have arisen, and reaffirmed its determination to refrain from competitive devaluation of currencies. We also welcomed the fact that Russia, the last G20 country outside the World Trade Organisation, is now set to become a member of the WTO by the end of the year.

On Doha, I have said it is time to look at working with groups of countries in so- called “coalitions of the willing” to drive new trade deals. Together with five other G20 leaders, I wrote to President Sarkozy ahead of the summit to call for new and innovative approaches to trade liberalisation. That is what was agreed in the communiqué.

On improving global governance, I presented a report, which I am placing in the Library today. We secured agreement for the key proposals. First, we agreed that the G20 should continue as an informal, flexible gathering rather than attempting a complete reordering of the system of global governance. What is needed is not new institutions, but political will. Secondly, we agreed that we should make the now established Financial Stability Board a separate legal body to give it the authority and capability that it needs. Thirdly, we agreed that we should strengthen the WTO’s role as the guardian of the world trade system. Further progress was also made on cracking down on tax havens and tax evasion and on having a proper regulatory system for banks to make up for the woeful system that has existed in so many countries, including ours, over the last decade.

On development, Bill Gates gave a presentation suggesting ways of mobilising resources to help the world’s poorest. This included helping some developing countries to help themselves through proper systems for collecting taxes and transparent revenues for natural resources. At the same time, he gave strong support to the UK’s own record on the development agenda.

On the financial transactions tax, I have been clear all along that we are not opposed in principle to such a tax if one could be agreed at the global level, but we will not unilaterally introduce a new financial transactions tax in the UK. Neither will we support its introduction in the European Union unless it is part of a global move. Britain has introduced a bank levy and we are meeting our global agreements on overseas aid. If other countries want to introduce new financial taxes at home, including to raise revenue for development, that is for them to decide. What they should not do is try to hide behind proposals for an EU tax as an excuse for political inaction on meeting targets, whether they be for spending on development or, indeed, climate change.

The current proposals for a financial transactions tax in Europe are so deeply confused that different European countries, and indeed European institutions, have talked about spending the revenues of such a tax in five different ways: on development, on climate change, on social policy, on resolving the banking crisis, and, most recently, as the best way to supplement the EU budget. I have to say that that would be a bit of a stretch even for Robin Hood.

Let me turn, finally, to the problems in the eurozone. It is clearly in our national interest for the eurozone to sort out its problems. As the Chancellor has said, the biggest single boost to the British economy this autumn would be a lasting resolution to the eurozone crisis. That is why Britain has been pressing the eurozone to act—not just at the G20, but for many months. The deal in Brussels 10 days ago was welcome progress, and it reflected the three essential elements that Britain has been calling for: first, reinforcement of the bail-out fund by eurozone countries to create a proper firewall against contagion; secondly, recapitalisation of weak European banks; and, thirdly, a decisive resolution to the unsustainable position of Greece’s debts.

The Euro area countries now need to do everything possible to implement their agreement urgently. Of course, the rest of the world can play a supporting role, but in the end this work has to be done by the eurozone countries themselves. No one else can do it for them. As I have said before, Britain will not contribute to the eurozone bail-out fund—whether that be through the European financial stability facility or a special purpose vehicle. And while the International Monetary Fund may administer a fund, it cannot and will not contribute to it.

The IMF does, however, have a vital role to play in supporting countries right across the world that are in serious economic distress. There are 53 countries currently being supported by the IMF, of which only three—Greece, Ireland and Portugal—are in the eurozone. It is essential for confidence and economic stability that the IMF has the resources it needs. So, at the G20, Britain, the US, China and all the other countries round the table made it clear that we are willing in principle to see an increase in IMF resources to boost global confidence. There was no agreement about the timing, the extent or the exact method through which this could be done. However, Britain stands ready to contribute within limits agreed by this House. Those who propose that we walk away from the IMF, or who oppose even the increase in IMF resources agreed by the last Government, are not acting responsibly or in the best interests of Britain.

It is in our national interest for countries across the world that are in distress to be supported in their efforts to recover. The collapse of our trading partners, whether in the eurozone or not, would have a serious impact on our economy. Businesses would not invest, British jobs would be lost, and families across Britain would be poorer. Through the IMF, we can help other countries in a way that does not affect our own public finances—but let me be clear: it is for the eurozone and the European Central Bank to support the euro, and global action cannot be a substitute for concrete action by the eurozone. The G20 withheld specific IMF commitments at this stage precisely because we wanted to see more concrete action from eurozone countries to make their firewall credible and to stand behind their currency. In short, the world sent a clear message to the eurozone at this summit: “Sort yourselves out and then we will help, not the other way round.”

These are very difficult times for the global economy. The Government are completely focused on one objective: to help Britain to weather the storm and safeguard our economy. Because of the tough decisions that the Government have already taken to get to grips with our deficits, Britain has avoided the worst of this stage of the global debt crisis. In 2008, under the last Government, UK bond yields were about the same as those in Greece; today, although we have the second highest deficit in the EU—second only to Ireland’s—our bond yields are almost the same as those in Germany, and around the lowest that they have been since world war two. That is because we have a credible plan to deal with our debts, and the resolve to see it through. The situation in Italy further emphasises the importance of a credible plan to deal with debts and ensure confidence in the markets more generally.

The eurozone must now do what is necessary, and see through the agreement that it reached in Brussels 10 days ago. Britain, and all our G20 partners, will continue to press for that to happen. I commend my statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but I have to say to him—what a complacent statement from an out-of-touch Prime Minister! Anyone listening to him would think that the G20 summit had been a great success, but it was not.

Let me ask the Prime Minister about the three areas in which the summit should have made progress: the eurozone, reform of our banking system, and economic growth. On the eurozone, the Chancellor said in mid-September:

“'The eurozone has six weeks to resolve this political crisis.”

The six weeks are up, but there is no clear solution on financing. How much, from whom, and in what circumstances? None of those questions are being answered. Now we see the crisis in Greece spreading to Italy, and no plans for jobs and growth—just more austerity.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why European and G20 leaders failed to find a solution to the problems of the eurozone? Given that the Chancellor told us from Cannes that he and the Prime Minister were

“right at the heart of the discussions here”,

people will be struck by the Prime Minister’s tone today. Progress that was made at the summit was, of course, down to him—and, as always with this Prime Minister, failure is nothing to do with him.

Does the Prime Minister not now regret that he did not try harder and earlier to engage in the discussions and push for an agreement, rather than standing aside and claiming that Britain was a “safe haven”? If we were indeed at the heart of the discussion, can the Prime Minister say what responsibility he takes for the failure of the eurozone? Given the importance that all this has for Britain, can he tell us specifically what he plans to do in the coming days to secure an agreement?

Let me turn to the funding for the IMF. The Prime Minister said in his press conference on Friday, and again today,

“you can’t ask the IMF or other countries to substitute for the action that needs to be taken within the eurozone itself.”

We agree with that position. The sensible step of increasing resources for the IMF should not be taken to make up for inadequate eurozone action.

The Prime Minister has said that he would not support the direct use of IMF resources to top up the European financial stability facility, but can he also categorically rule out the use of IMF resources indirectly, in parallel, to make up for insufficient funding from the EFSF or the European Central Bank? Can he also square his position that his commitment is within agreed resources with the comment of the managing director of the IMF that there is “no cap…no ceiling” on IMF resources?

Let me turn to the issue of banking reform, and specifically the global financial transactions tax, which we support and believe should be implemented if we can reach agreement in all the major financial centres. It was on the agenda in Cannes, although no real progress was made. I have to say I could not tell from his statement whether the Prime Minister really supports it; after all, “not opposed in principle” is hardly a ringing endorsement. I do not think we should be surprised, because the week before the summit negotiations had even started, the Chancellor was writing to business leaders casting doubt on whether any such mechanism offers an efficient way to raise revenue. So can the Prime Minister tell us whether he actually argued for a global financial transactions tax at the summit, and can he tell us what steps he will be taking in the weeks and months ahead to advance its cause?

Turning to growth, the first substantive paragraph of the communiqué states:

“Since our last meeting, global recovery has weakened, particularly in advanced countries, leaving unemployment at unacceptable levels.”

That is certainly true in this country, where growth has flatlined and unemployment is at a 17-year high. So does the Prime Minister understand why people are so disappointed by the failure of the summit?

The Prime Minister talks about the words in the communiqué about trade and imbalances, but action on trade and imbalances will take years to implement. He also mentions undertakings by various countries who have scope to take action, but it is a very important point in the communiqué that they will be implemented only if

“global economic conditions materially worsen.”

People around the country will be wondering: how much worse do they need to get for action to be taken? He says, by the way, that nobody is arguing for Britain to change course, but the IMF said only last month that if the British economy continues to undershoot, the Chancellor should do just that. How much longer does the country have to wait for him to change course?

After the April 2009 G20 summit the Prime Minister said:

“The glitz and glamour of this week must seem very remote to the small businessman who still can’t secure the credit to stay afloat—or the mother worrying if she’ll be able to keep a roof over her children’s heads.”

The 2009 G20 summit succeeded, and this one failed. For the young person who is unemployed, for the business that has seen demand for its goods disappear, and for the shops that have seen people leaving the high street, this summit achieved precisely nothing. That is why the Prime Minister looks so out of touch when he claims that the summit has made a difference on growth. But is not the real problem this: the Prime Minister does not really believe that we need a global plan for growth? He thinks the answer for the world is collective austerity, just as he used to claim that the answer is austerity at home.

People wanted action from this summit, and they did not get it. Those struggling to find work, seeing their living standards squeezed, asking why the economy is not working for them, deserve better. Is not the truth that this is a do-nothing summit from a deeply complacent Prime Minister, out of touch with the real needs of our economy?

[The Prime Minister]

Honestly, I do not know who writes this rubbish! I liked the bit when the right hon. Gentleman quoted my response to the 2009 summit: I have to say that if the 2009 summit was such a success, why did the Labour party vote in the House of Commons against one of its key conclusions—the idea of increasing IMF resources? He talks about regulating banks, with no recognition of the failed regulatory system that he oversaw for a decade. He talks about the eurozone, with no recognition of the fact that Labour had a “national changeover plan” to get the whole of Britain to adopt the euro. Above all, let us be clear: if we had listened to his advice, we would not have been in Cannes discussing a Greek bail-out; we would have been at the IMF discussing a British bail-out.

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the figures. In 2008 Greek and British bond yields were both 4.5%. Since then, in the UK that rate has halved, whereas in Greece it is up by six times. That is because they did not have a credible policy for deficit reduction, and we do.

Let me come back to the issue of the IMF, because what we are seeing from the Labour party is breathtakingly irresponsible. Let us be clear about its position on the IMF, and let us remember that that is an organisation founded by Britain, in which we are a leading shareholder, and also an organisation that rescued us from Labour in the 1970s. Labour’s position is, first, to vote against the increase in resources agreed by the G20 under their own Government. They called it a “triumph” at the time, yet Labour Members trooped through the Lobby in a complete display of opportunism. But it gets worse, because now they are saying that they do not want IMF resources for any eurozone country. Are they saying that they want to take the money from Ireland and Portugal? They would have turned up at the summit, where every country was talking about increasing IMF resources, and said that on no account would Britain support that. How ridiculous. They are saying to eurozone countries, which also contribute to the IMF, “You’re never, ever allowed to seek its assistance.” If they meant that, I would take it seriously—but this is all about politics: they are putting the politics ahead of the economics. We know that that is the case with the shadow Chancellor: he only ever thinks about the politics. The question for the leader of the Labour party today is: are you a bigger politician than that? I am afraid that the answer is no.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did Chancellor Merkel tell my right hon. Friend why the European Central Bank is not fully discharging its duties as the euro’s lender of last resort? It is not providing massive quantitative easing, not moving towards near-zero interest rates and not urging President Sarkozy to renationalise the leading French banks before the credit crunch closes on France. Chancellor Merkel knows very well that it was not inflation but high unemployment which, in my lifetime, brought down the Weimar republic, and will do the same for the European Union.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend speaks hugely powerfully about this issue. He is right that we must not allow the IMF to substitute for what the ECB and the other institutions of the European Union need to do; that is vital. It was one of the reasons why, in the end, all the countries of the world that were prepared to see an increase in IMF resources wanted to see more done by the eurozone and by the ECB. I have discussed this with Chancellor Merkel on many occasions. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do of the huge hold-back that there is in Germany about what a central bank is, and what it should do. But I do believe that, as it says in the communiqué, you have got to have the institutions of the eurozone fully behind the currency in order to save it.

[Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Understandably, the Prime Minister is putting a brave face on what happened last week. On any viewing, the G20 failed to reach its aims on growth, on the imbalances or on the eurozone crisis, which is as bad now as it was a few days ago. I see that there were reports that the G20 is planning to meet again, perhaps as early as in the remaining part of this year or at the beginning of next year. Is that right? If so, would the Prime Minister bear it in mind that in some ways, no summit is better than another failure? The G20 may not be perfect, but it cannot afford another meeting where it singularly fails to come up with the goods.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: meetings that do not have a proper conclusion can often add to the problem rather than solve it. What is required is the political will for eurozone countries to act. I was very clear after the G20 meeting that it had not achieved a breakthrough on the euro—that is absolutely clear. Some progress has been made in terms of establishing the three elements that need to be put in place—the firewall, the recapitalisation and the Greek write-down—but much more has to be done. There may well be a meeting of G20 Finance Ministers, but I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes: it is progress and resolution of these issues that is required, rather than another meeting.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given the intense interest in this statement and the fact that there are two further statements to follow, brevity is essential.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

The European Commission has estimated that implementation of the financial transactions tax would reduce gross domestic product in the euro area by 1.8%. Of course, that would hit the UK disproportionately hard at a time when we need more growth, not less. Does the Prime Minister agree that, of all times, now is not the appropriate moment to consider such a controversial measure?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important for people to see the European Commission report on the financial transactions tax, which shows the figures that my hon. Friend talks about, and shows that it would cost jobs. As I have said, if we could achieve global agreement for a tax of that nature there would be a case for it, but it is very hard to see that happening. I think that the focus of politicians in Europe should be to meet the promises they have already made about development rather than to hide behind a financial transactions tax that they know is very unlikely to come into being.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

The frustration and impatience that the Prime Minister expressed on Thursday and Friday last week were extremely well merited, and it would be as well if he came here and repeated his concerns about the failure of leadership across Europe at this vital time. In that context, though, is it not a tragedy that when Europe does need a voice for reform—for example, on budgetary policy, which is going to be a major issue in coming years—he has dealt himself out of the game with a focus on the repatriation of powers, which, frankly, is not the issue that is going to make or break the European economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason: I have managed to assemble a coalition for budgetary restraint in the European Union, and this year Britain, France, Germany and others have all agreed to freeze the EU budget in real terms. I would like to go much further, but I have to say that a freeze in the budget in real terms is not something we have been able to achieve in recent years, and is a breakthrough, so I do not accept the point about looking at rebalancing powers in Europe and fighting for a deal on the budget. We can do both.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Given that the single market, including the City of London, is governed by qualified majority voting, how does the Prime Minister propose to achieve a majority to protect our interests in the context of the fiscal union that he advocates?

[The Prime Minister]

First, we need to disconnect the issues that my hon. Friend raises. The issue of the single market and the threat to the City of London and Britain’s financial services is a real threat. We have to work extremely hard to build alliances in the single market and in the European Council to stop directives that would damage our interests. I think it is extremely important that we do that work. Financial services matter hugely to this country, and this is one of the areas that I want to ensure we can better safeguard in future.

I do not support fiscal union. I do not think that Britain ought to join a fiscal union, as I do not think that is the right move for us. However, we have a single currency that is quite dysfunctional, and one way in which it could be made more functional is greater fiscal union. That is a statement of fact rather than our saying that we want in any way to join it: we do not. We want to safeguard the interests of Britain by making sure that the single market works for us.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Is it really in the best long-term interests of this country for the Government consistently to present the United Kingdom as the neighbour from hell with regard to the European Union—not least with regard to the Tobin tax? The issues on which the European Union wishes to spend money are the issues on which the Prime Minister’s constituents and mine, and citizens around the world, wish to see money spent—not least on alleviating suffering in the third world and on climate change. Will he change his mind on this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect to the hon. Lady, this Government—and to an extent the Governments whom she supported—have made and kept promises about things that our constituents care about, such as development and climate change. We are meeting those. As for being a good neighbour, one of the most unneighbourly acts someone could perform when the whole world is looking at growing the resources of the IMF to safeguard the global economy is to walk away from that and vote against it—something that I know that quite a lot of Labour MPs, probably including some on the Front Bench, are rather ashamed of. Such an act would show them to be not only not a good neighbour, but on another planet.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As there is a danger of the euro crisis now spreading to Italy, can the Prime Minister tell me what the leaders of euroland have said they will do by way of buying Italian bonds or offering subsidised loans to Italy to head off the crisis in the market there?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend asks an important question. It goes back to the question that the Father of the House asked, about the actions of the ECB. The ECB has been intervening in markets and buying bonds of countries that are under pressure. That is what makes it so difficult to understand why some in Europe are so opposed to the ECB being more of a monetary activist, if I could put it that way. The key with Italy—everyone should be careful about speculating about another country—and the point I made in my statement is that Italy must demonstrate that it has a credible fiscal path. That is as much about the confidence of the markets that it will be able to pay its deficit and pay its debts. If it can do that, its interest rates will fall.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The door marked “Exit from the eurozone” is now clearly in view and a number of eurozone states are moving inexorably towards it. Is it not obvious that until those states can recreate their own national currencies and find an appropriate parity for those currencies, they will not recover?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman refers principally, I think, to Greece. That is an issue that the Greeks have to decide themselves. They have been offered a deal that writes down their debts and can enable them to stay in the single currency; it is their decision whether to take that road or to take another road. The only thing I would say to Members of the House who are deeply sceptical about a single currency, of whom I am one, is that we should be very careful to recognise that countries leaving a single currency can cause all sorts of knock-on effects and problems for other economies, including our own. We should not see it as some sort of painless easy option for a country to fall out of the euro. It would have very real consequences for other countries, including our own, and we have to think about that in that context.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Given the role that the big banks played by being overstretched and therefore triggering the present financial crisis, can the Prime Minister tell us what progress he made in persuading his colleague countries in the G20 to follow the proposal that we made and that the Vickers commission recommended to break up the banks that are too big to fail, so that in no economy are the big financial institutions able to hold a gun to the state and to the taxpayer?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, many people will comment on the ultimate failure of the G20 to resolve the eurozone crisis, but the G20 has made good steps forward in areas such as trying to roll back protectionism, and particularly on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises about globally significant financial institutions and the impact that they can have. The approach that Vickers recommends is fully in tune with what other G20 countries are recommending.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister realise that the British people out there are listening to the sheer effrontery of this British Prime Minister suggesting a growth plan for Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, while here at home he sticks rigidly to high inflation and mass unemployment? Hypocrisy by the bucketful!

[The Prime Minister]

That probably sounded better in front of the mirror than when the hon. Gentleman got to the Chamber.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest single fillips to global growth would be breaking the deadlock over the Doha round? Can he say how confident he is now that the approach of willing coalitions will help make progress on this issue under the Mexican presidency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The point about Doha is that it is not progressing in the way that it was meant to. There is a gridlock between many of the developing countries and, particularly, countries such as America that do not see enough in the round for them. So it seems that the only way forward, if we want to see more global trade deals that are good for all those participating, is to have coalitions of the willing—countries that want to push ahead. That is what has been sanctioned at the G20, and that is what we can now push ahead with.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Greece, Spain and Portugal already are, and Italy probably is, insolvent within the European monetary union. None of these countries is likely to regain its competitiveness while it is part of the single currency. Does the Prime Minister not think it would be better for the IMF to give them extra funds only once they have left the single currency, rather than while they are part of the EMU?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is not necessarily fair to lump all those countries together. Some of them, such as Italy, have huge deficits in terms of the ratio of debt to GDP, but have managed to compete within the single currency, so I am not sure that the way in which she groups those countries together is entirely fair. The important role of the IMF is not to support a currency system, not to support the eurozone, and not to invest into a bail-out fund. The IMF has to be there for countries in distress. That is why everyone in the House supported, for instance, the IMF programme that went into Ireland. The IMF went in as a partner of other countries, but it did go in. If she turns her question round the other way, it would be extraordinary, would it not, to say to eurozone countries, “You are shareholders in the IMF, you contributed to the IMF, but when you’re in distress you can’t get any money from the IMF at all”? That would be an extraordinary position—but it is one that seems to have the support of those on the Labour Front Bench.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Has not the avoidance of a concentration of political and economic power on the continent been a cardinal feature of British foreign policy for 300 years? How then is it in our interests to facilitate the creation of a single fiscal and monetary union that will have enormous power over us, but over which we will have very little influence?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks a question with a broad historical sweep. We are suffering at the moment from a single currency that we are not a member of, but that has some serious structural faults. It is in our interests that those faults are resolved, and one way of helping to do that would be to have a greater pooling of fiscal sovereignty among the members of the single currency. I always felt that that was necessary and was going to happen, which is one reason why I never supported the single currency. However, I do not think that we can stick happily with the status quo when the single currency is having a chilling effect on our economy, through the crisis, and not seek some sort of resolution.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

A few years ago the President of Yemen was invited to the G20, but the country now has the world’s third highest rate of malnutrition. What additional help can Yemen be given as a result of the G20 meeting? Would the Prime Minister be happy for some of the IMF money he has just given to go to Yemen?

[The Prime Minister]

First, we have not yet given any IMF money. There was no agreement on how much should be given, exactly when it should be given or in what way. The world was saying that it stood ready to support the IMF. The IMF has supported countries like Yemen in the past and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have put development aid into Yemen. The biggest challenge in Yemen is the lack of effective governance, and I think that what Bill Gates was talking about—proper systems for raising taxes and for transparency in Government revenues and in revenues from extractive industries and minerals—are the keys to helping such countries along their way.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Back in July the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told a Committee of this House, with regard to IMF obligations:

“We have an agreement to fund up to £20 billion, broadly speaking.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 5 July 2011; c. 9.]

Pretty broad, it turns out. We now hear that the figure is closer to £40 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to level with the British people, with no weasel words or sophistry, and that Ministers have an obligation to be absolutely straight about what they plan to do with other people’s money?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this. There are two sorts of money that the UK provides to the IMF: money through our quota, which is effectively through our shareholding, and money through loans and other arrangements. There have been three votes in this House in the last three years on all the elements of the IMF money. As I have said, if it comes to giving extra support for the IMF, we want to do that within the headroom that has been set.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Are we not really dealing with a sophisticated form of Russian roulette, in which the Prime Minister tells us on the one hand that he does not think that it is right for eurozone countries to have their funding from the IMF cut off, but says on the other hand that at this stage there should be no additional money from the IMF? When will the stage be right for that additional IMF money?

[The Prime Minister]

There are 53 IMF programmes around the world, only three of which are in the eurozone, so in part it is a judgment for the IMF about when it needs to replenish its resources. Let me be clear about what needs to happen in the eurozone countries. They have to sort out the problems of the euro: they need that firewall, and it is Europe that effectively has to provide it. They need that recapitalisation and the demonstrable and clear write-down of Greek debts. Those are the things that they have responsibility for. We have responsibility, as an IMF shareholder, for bulking up the IMF finances at the right moment. I do not see that as Russian roulette; it is just very sensible economics and politics.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what advice he has received on the consequences of failing to pay our IMF subscriptions, as so irresponsibly advocated by the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not entirely sure what would have happened if we had turned up at the G20 having voted down the deal from the London G20 on increasing the IMF resources. First of all, we would have declined to implement one of the key findings of the last G20, and then we would have turned up and said that we were not prepared to see any increase in IMF funding for anything else. Britain would have been completely isolated and left out. The reason why the Opposition are talking about this is that it is all about the politics and nothing to do with the economics, and they know it.

[Stewart Hosie]

(Dundee East) (SNP): The Prime Minister said that the UK would not fund the EFSF, but it remains one of the eurozone’s most powerful tools, and there are two new powers proposed for it—to insure newly issued sovereign debt, and to spin out investment trusts to buy that debt. Do the Prime Minister and his Government believe that those powers will be enough to leverage the EFSF up to the €1 trillion or so required to give it the firepower that it needs?

[The Prime Minister]

There are still real difficulties with that. The EFSF and the idea of a special purpose vehicle were set out at the eurozone meeting 10 days ago, but the problem is that since then we have not seen enough detail on how exactly those funds would work and how they would be levered up. You need—I have used “bazooka” before—a bazooka big enough to convince people that you will not have to use it, and that is what the eurozone needs to do, but it has not yet completed that work.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In the interests of accommodating more colleagues, I now appeal for single, short supplementary questions and the Prime Minister’s characteristically pithy replies.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Why does the Prime Minister seem to think that the Greeks will be any more successful at staying in the euro than we were at trying to remain in the ERM?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the few advantages of the ERM was that you were able to get out of it, but one of the issues with the euro is that there is not a mechanism, properly and legally, for leaving it. If a country wanted to leave the euro, of course it could, but in the end this is an issue for the Greeks. They have to decide: do they accept the deal on the table that cuts their debt, and stay in the euro, or do they take a different path? The point I have been making is that they have to make up their mind for the rest of the world to move on.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion at the G20 about the unaccountable power of the rating agencies to decide the future of national economies, or about the massive profits being made on short-term loans out of the poverty and austerity of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland—any discussion about control over the banking system, rather than bowing down to it?

[The Prime Minister]

There were concerns expressed, and they are frequently expressed, about the role of the ratings agencies and the way they are regulated. Sometimes, they come from politicians who have had a particularly rough time with the ratings agencies, but it is very important that we use organisations such as the Financial Stability Board to make sure that we get the answers right, rather than do it according to political fiat.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

We must have contingency plans if the eurozone breaks up. Does the Prime Minister agree that Parliament must be given a very early opportunity to scrutinise the adequacy of those contingency plans?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but that is quite a difficult ask, because there is of course important ongoing work on contingency plans, but the more we discuss and speculate on the nature of another country’s currency and economy, the more we could damage their interests. So, I will think carefully about what he says, but it might be difficult to air some of those issues in public.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister knows that the IMF currently gives 32.4 billion special drawing rights—about £32 billion—to the eurozone to prop it up, so how can he justify giving more British taxpayers’ money to the eurozone via the IMF when there are people starving in Africa and people cannot pay their heating bills in Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

No country has ever lost money lending it to the IMF. The IMF is, in a globalised world, a vital institution for supporting countries that get into deep economic distress, and, if we were to walk away from it and just to allow trading partners—in the eurozone or outside—to collapse with no one to help them, that would mean British jobs lost and British businesses going bust. It might give you a five-second soundbite on the news in order to try to give you some political advantage, but it would be completely irresponsible.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that Greece’s remaining in the eurozone is a matter for the Greek Government, and that there is no free hit for the break-up of the euro, but will he take time to read the Centre for Economics and Business Research paper, which points out that, for Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular, our economy will be growing faster in two years’ time if the euro breaks up than it will if we try to keep the currency going?

[The Prime Minister]

I have seen reports of the piece of work that my hon. Friend speaks about, and perhaps I will have time this evening to read it at greater leisure. We can look at the economic experts and what they say, but there is quite a strong consensus that the consequences of a country falling out of a single currency zone, where banks and businesses are very interrelated, are very serious for all the members concerned. As I say, if it happens, we will have contingency plans in place and we will have to manage them as best we can, but no one—however sceptical they are about the euro—should think there is an easy way for a country to leave.

[Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Now that the Greeks will have a new Government who will ratify the 26-27 October agreements, and as the Group of Twenty is an informal grouping, would it not be appropriate, where there is agreement, for the group’s Finance Ministers to get together to help the European financial stability fund put together its firewall under the Sarkozy presidency?

[The Prime Minister]

The G20 Finance Ministers might have to meet again, but, as I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), only if a new set of arrangements is being put in place. Part of the problem in Europe is that, so often, meetings are scheduled without proper thought about what the outcome will be—about what will be achieved. That has been one of the things that have caused a huge amount of market turbulence over recent months.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Figures out today show that EU productivity is falling at its fastest rate since 2009. The only big economy to record an expansion in output per worker is the UK. Why does the Prime Minister think that the United Kingdom can borrow at a 0.5% interest rate for one year’s money, compared with 4.7% for Spain and 6.3% for Italy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, in getting greater competitiveness across Europe, this is the most important thing that Europe could be doing right now: completing the single market, completing the market in energy, completing the market in services and making sure our economies are competitive. The point he makes about the bond market is vital, too. The fact is that if you do not have credibility, you cannot borrow money at low interest rates, and if you do not have credibility, interest rates go up. That would be the worst thing to hit your economy.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

At summit after summit, the Prime Minister has argued to support a monetary union he does not really think is appropriate for this country and in which he does not believe, so that stability can be brought to Europe and the world. That has failed. How many more failures will it take and how many more summits will there be before he argues for what is really right for Europe: for those countries to return to their original currencies?

[The Prime Minister]

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, which has complete intellectual coherence. The fact is that they could go in that direction, but other European Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers and, indeed, the people in those countries will say that they do not want to leave the euro and that they want to make the euro work. We are affected by what is happening in the eurozone, which is why I keep saying that it is in our interests that they get their act together and make their currency work. You can argue for the opposite, but the fact is that that is what most European countries want and that is what I think they will try to achieve.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers 16 September 1992—golden Wednesday—when the United Kingdom came out of the exchange rate mechanism, which was the start of our economic recovery. Why are the political elite of Europe denying Greece and other euro countries the same mechanism to improve their currency: withdrawal from the euro so they can re-establish their national currency?

[The Prime Minister]

I learned a very important lesson from our experience in the exchange rate mechanism: never fix interest rates in a way like that because you may need a different interest rate in your economy from that applying elsewhere. That is why I am so completely opposed to Britain ever joining the euro. I could not be clearer about that—unlike the Labour party, which spent 13 years planning and preparing for our eventual admission to the euro. We must allow other countries to make their own choices, and the choice of people in Greece—it is their business—seems to be that they want to stay in the euro. That is not the choice I would necessarily make—or that Mrs Bone, or even Mr Bone, would necessarily make—but that is the choice they seem to want to make and we have to support them in it.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Another report came out today from the Institute for Public Policy Research showing that 32,000 jobs in the public sector were lost in the north-east last year while the number of private sector jobs also went down, and the number of public sector jobs in London and the south-east went up. Why should the Europeans trust the action plan from the Prime Minister when his inaction plan in this country is destroying the regions of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course there has to be a rebalancing of public sector and private sector jobs in our economy, and of course there are difficult circumstances faced by different parts of the country, but in the north-east we have seen the expansion of the Nissan plant, and we have the new Hitachi train plant going into the north-east as well. What we need to do as a country is to become more competitive—to start manufacturing and making things again, which will benefit all the regions of our country.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Would not France, among other countries, do rather more to help developing countries if it met its own UN target for international development, as we are doing, rather than exhorting those of us who are meeting our UN targets to sign up to a financial transactions tax?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. Some other countries are using the cover of a financial transactions tax to get off the fact that they have not met their targets for overseas development assistance. In all the figures that we bandy around about the financial transactions tax, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that around 80% of it would be raised from businesses in the United Kingdom. I am sometimes tempted to ask the French whether they would like a cheese tax.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Seeing that the European Central Bank has been told to sit on its hands, obviously by the Germans, is it not time that the Prime Minister reminded the Germans that it was the Marshall plan that saved their country after the war?

[The Prime Minister]

The European Central Bank is independent; no one is able to tell it what to do. There is a very strong case for saying that the eurozone institutions, including the ECB, need to do more to stand behind their currency and their currency zone, but we have to understand why the Germans feel as strongly as they do, and it is partly based on their history and what they feel went wrong in the 1920s and ’30s. None the less, I think that the argument that the ECB and the eurozone institutions need to do more is right.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to listen to Labour and ease our deficit reduction strategy, our interest rates would soar towards Italian levels and away from German levels, and will he explain to the British taxpayer what that would be likely to cost in increased interest payments?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just a question of the extra interest payments the Government would have to pay, although that would be pretty crippling for the taxpayer; it is also the fact that those higher interest rates would affect business investment and the mortgages that people pay. We could see a really bad effect on households and business as well as on the Government finances.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

When will the G20 show global leadership and produce a plan for growth and a plan for jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the global plan for growth and jobs—and the reason it is worth while, and the whole of the G20 process is worth while—is that different countries are committing to doing different things at the same time to maximise global growth. It is quite clear that Britain needs to get on top of its debts and its deficit and export more; it is also clear that China needs to grow its consumption, grow its middle class, and import more. If we all do these things at the same time, we will find that we can maximise global growth and increase employment levels too.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s statement that the UK should not contribute to any further eurozone bail-out fund, but how can UK taxpayers be certain that our contributions to the IMF will not be used for such purposes when the UK has only 4.29% of the vote on the IMF governing body?

[The Prime Minister]

The IMF has extremely tough and clear rules about when it can and when it cannot lend money. That is why it cannot put, and nor would we support its putting, money into a euro bail-out fund or into a special purpose vehicle. That is not the role of the IMF—that must be the role of the European financial stability facility—but what the IMF can do is lend money and help countries that are in distress. As I said, no country has ever lost money on lending it to the IMF, because it is the senior creditor in all these arrangements.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister keeps talking about rebalancing the economy. We have seen a 20% to 25% reduction in the value of the pound, which should have made us competitive, yet the private sector is not taking up the slack because there is no confidence out there. Do we not need another plan to build confidence?

[The Prime Minister]

The worst thing we could do for confidence would be to abandon the plans to deal with our debt and our deficit, because we can see what is happening in countries such as Italy that do not have a proper plan for getting on top of their debts: they have higher interest rates and all the problems that they bring. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have had a depreciation in our currency that should lead us to be more competitive. If one looks at the export figures from Britain to countries such as India and China, one sees that there is a good increase in our exports.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My constituents do not want to pay taxes to bail out the euro. Will the Prime Minister remind us who got this country into the permanent EFSF and who got us out of it?

[The Prime Minister]

None of our constituents wants to pay taxes to bail out the eurozone; that is not what our taxes should go towards. When we came to office we were part of the European financial stabilisation mechanism—the EFSM. I have got us out of that from 2013, but between now and then we are still at risk because of a very bad decision to which the previous Government agreed.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

If the eurozone continues to fail to deal with the crisis, what actions will the Prime Minister take to protect the interests of the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

We must put in place contingency plans for any of these countries leaving the eurozone. The hon. Gentleman asks what those plans are. For obvious reasons, if we start to describe exactly what we might have to do, we could set off all sorts of chain reactions. If he wants to discuss privately with a Treasury Minister the elements of any plan, he is at liberty to do so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is it the Prime Minister’s understanding that were Greece, Italy or any other country to leave the eurozone, it would require a treaty change?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe my hon. Friend is right that there is nothing in the treaties that allows a eurozone member to leave the eurozone yet stay in the European Union. My sense is that were that to happen, some allowance would be made. He is right to say that that would involve a treaty change at some stage to ensure that it was legal.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has suggested that he is in favour of a global financial transaction tax. That will happen on a global basis only if people take the lead. What my constituents wanted to know when they contacted me was what steps the Prime Minister took at the Cannes summit to promote that tax.

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke on the financial transaction tax at the session where it was discussed and said that we supported it at a global level. I made a few of the points that I have made in the House today because sitting around the table were the representatives of European countries and institutions, including the European Commission, that have spent this money several times over. When we talk about the European budget, such a tax is given as the great way to raise money for that; when we talk about development, it is given as the way that we will pay for development; when we talk about climate change, it suddenly becomes the magic way to meet all our climate change commitments. Frankly, I do not think that we should allow other European countries to get away with that.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

It is highly likely that China’s condition for buying into eurozone debt will be the lifting of the EU-wide arms embargo, which would be directly against Britain’s national interests given its defence industry base and the tens of thousands of jobs that are dependent on it. Given that that would require a unanimous decision by all EU member states, will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK Government would veto such a request?

[The Prime Minister]

We do not support the lifting of the arms embargo. In the discussions at the G20, there was not some sort of shopping list from the Chinese—a rather unfair point that some have made. Clearly, it is in China’s interests, just as it is in our interests, that the eurozone crisis is dealt with. China has huge export markets in Europe and it owns huge amounts of European debt. That is why China, like Britain, subscribes to the IMF and will support an increase in its resources.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said that the action plan for growth and jobs includes many of the things that Britain is already doing. I can assume only that it is a very thin document. How many minutes were spent talking about job creation at the summit?

[The Prime Minister]

A great deal of the first day was spent talking about the condition of the world economy, and particularly the fact that economies in the developed world are obviously seeing very low rates of growth. I also had a meeting, I am pleased to report, with the leader of the TUC and other international trade unionists, to discuss specifically growth and jobs, and how we can try to prevent youth unemployment from rising in western European countries. I do not know whether all my predecessors always found time for such meetings at the G20, but I was delighted to have one.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister see at the G20 any evidence that eurozone leaders were becoming clearer that it is an entirely fanciful notion to expect China to bail out eurozone countries whose GDP is many times its own?

[The Prime Minister]

I would not underestimate the huge pressure that the eurozone leaders are under to come up with a solution to the crisis in the eurozone. Clearly some of them have huge ideological difficulties with seeing a greater role for eurozone institutions. I do not think it is completely out of the question that other countries—China, or Saudi Arabia—might at some stage want to contribute to a eurozone fund, not least because the risk would be taken with the eurozone money and not with the Chinese or other money. In the end, however, there is no substitute for the eurozone acting first to sort out its difficulties.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Which were the countries persuaded by the Prime Minister that they had space to borrow for what he calls “further discretionary measures”?

[The Prime Minister]

A list in the action plan for growth and jobs specifically states that countries such as Canada, China and others could borrow more. They are set out in the communiqué, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will not take the advice of Opposition Members and increase the deficit to boost growth artificially? The consequent rise in interest rates and inflation would cause enormous damage to small businesses and families right across this country.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we went to the G20 summit arguing for a £20 billion increase in borrowing this year, or the increase that Labour supports of £87 billion over the Parliament, at the same time as saying that we were going to get out of the IMF, I think the G20 would conclude that we were completely barking.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The more a balloon is inflated, the more it hurts when it eventually explodes. Would it not be better for us to help the Greeks default and devalue now rather than later?

[The Prime Minister]

We have argued very consistently that part of any solution has to be a very decisive writing down of Greek debt, because it obviously cannot afford the level of debt that it currently has. That is the plan that it is being offered. Some would argue that even that is not enough, and that is my hon. Friend’s position, but our view has always been that unless the debts are written down significantly, there will not be a proper solution.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly argued that fixing the eurozone is a matter for eurozone countries. May I welcome the fact that he has announced that we are making contingency plans for the possibility of that failing?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, it is difficult to say more about it in the House, but I will discuss with Treasury Ministers whether we can say a little bit more. If Members have contributions that they want to make or concerns about elements of any contingency plan, which would have to be very wide ranging and cover all sorts of different eventualities, they should talk to Treasury Ministers.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister have an estimate of the liability that the UK would have incurred had we not excluded ourselves from the European financial stability mechanism bail-out fund that the Labour Government supported?

[The Prime Minister]

One thing that we have managed to keep out of is the European element of the Greek bail-out. That has had two iterations, and we were not involved in the first or the second. The specific idea of using the EFSM to support Greece was batted away by Britain.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

One of the key issues about the eurozone is the need to recapitalise a number of European banks, especially those that are quite weak. What comments can the Prime Minister make about the relative strength of UK banks, and will he say that the UK taxpayer will not have to stump up any more cash to recapitalise our banks?

[The Prime Minister]

On the current plan for the recapitalisation of European banks, British banks would not require any additional capital because they are quite well capitalised already. There is a concern that needs to be expressed that as the Europeans move to recapitalise their banks, it is quite important that they do not do that purely by shrinking bank balance sheets, and that they encourage banks to find fresh sources of capital so that lending does not decrease in the European Union.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Are we not in danger of ignoring the political reality of the current situation, which is that saving the euro at almost any cost is in the long-term interests of Germany, but not necessarily that of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom? That being so, surely the ECB and not the IMF must be the lender of last resort.

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s last point. The point about the future of the euro is that we should take a very hard-headed, national-interest view. All the evidence is that a disorderly break-up of the euro would have very bad effects on all the economies within Europe, and bad effects on Britain. One can make longer-term arguments about what it might mean and how things might change but, in the short-term, there is no doubt that when we are trying to secure growth and jobs in this country a disorderly break-up of the eurozone would not be good for Britain.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for the thoughtful and constructive leadership that he offered at the G20? The debate has focused quite narrowly on Greece in recent weeks. What is his interpretation of the emerging situation in Italy?

[The Prime Minister]

We all have to be careful not to speculate on other countries, but the requirement of those who are lending money to Italy is a clear and consistent plan for Italy getting on top of its debts and deficit. When they see that, interest rates will come back down again. However, that is a lesson to any country that if they do not have credibility in the markets, their interest rates can go up quite quickly.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK already has a financial transactions tax—one that raises around £3 billion a year? It is just that we call it stamp duty.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One point that Bill Gates made to me is that if other European countries introduce stamp duty on shares, they might find that they can get to the 0.7% of GDP that they are meant to be giving in overseas development assistance without having a financial transactions tax. If they care about overseas development, as this Government do, that might be quite a good answer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have two further statements to follow and programmed business. I am sorry to have to disappoint a few colleagues today, but that is the way it is.

UK Border Force

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

16:37

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK border force, an operational division of the UK Border Agency. The border force is responsible for ensuring that only legitimate travellers and goods are allowed to enter and leave the UK, while reducing threats including illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorism.

Border force activities include verifying the immigration status of passengers arriving and departing the UK; checking baggage, vehicles and cargo for illicit goods; and searching for illegal immigrants. Border force officers confirm the identity of passengers arriving at the UK border; check passengers against a watch list known as the warnings index; and undertake a visual inspection of passengers’ passports. Where a biometric passport is held, the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, is opened and verified.

Non-EU passengers undergo additional checks. Officers establish whether a visa is required and whether a visa is held. If the passenger has a biometric visa, a fingerprint database check can be made, and officers decide whether the passenger should be granted entry to the UK.

In the past, under the previous Government, some of those checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border. In the summer of 2008, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area nationals—children and adults—on Eurostar services. At Calais, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area and UK car passengers—again, adults as well as children were not run against the index. Since 2008, at various ports and airports, that happened on more than 100 occasions.

Officials tell me that once, in 2004, local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made. To prevent that from happening again, and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that the UK Border Agency could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers.

Initial options had been put to the then security Minister and the immigration Minister in January, who agreed them as a basis for further work. That resulted in proposals for a risk-based strategy coming to me in April. After further work, I agreed an amended and limited pilot scheme in July, which meant that, under limited circumstances, EEA national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index—designed to detect terrorists and serious criminals—when assessed by a border force official to be a credible risk.

The pilot also allowed, under limited circumstances, border force officials the discretion to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, on the passports of EEA nationals. Those circumstances were that the measures would always be subject to a risk-based assessment, that they should not be routine and that the volume of passengers would be such that border security would be stronger with more risk-based checks and fewer mandatory checks than with more mandatory checks on low-risk passengers and fewer risk-based checks for high-risk passengers. The advice of security officials was sought and they confirmed that they were content with the measures.

I want everybody to understand what was supposed to happen under the terms of the pilot. In usual circumstances, all checks would be carried out on all passengers. Under the risk-based controls, everybody’s passports would be checked; nobody would be waved through; visa nationals’ fingerprints would be checked; all non-EEA nationals’ biometric chips would be checked; all adults would be run past the warnings index; all non-EEA nationals would be run past the warnings index; and border officials would be free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chips of EEA passengers and to check EEA children travelling with parents or a school group against the warnings index.

The pilot was extended on 19 September and was due to end last Friday. The results are not yet fully evaluated, but UKBA’s statistics show that, compared with the same period last year, the number of illegal immigrants detected increased by nearly 10%. Last week, John Vine, the independent chief inspector of UKBA, raised concerns with Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of UKBA, that security checks were not being implemented properly. On Wednesday, the head of the UK border force, Brodie Clark, confirmed to Mr Whiteman that border controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval.

First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval. Biometric tests on non-EEA nationals are also thought to have been abandoned on occasions, again without ministerial approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without ministerial approval. Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval. I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of these decisions. Indeed, I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed.

As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the warnings index. Following Mr Clark’s conversation with Mr Whiteman, the latter carried out further investigations and on Thursday morning he suspended Mr Clark from duty with immediate effect. The Home Office permanent secretary, the immigration Minister and I were notified of his decision that morning. The pilot scheme, which had been due to end the next day, was suspended immediately, and on Friday two other border force officials, Graeme Kyle, director of operations at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of border force south and European operations, were also suspended from duty on a precautionary basis.

There is nothing more important than the security of our border, and because of the seriousness of these allegations I have ordered a number of investigations. Dave Wood, the head of the UKBA enforcement and crime group and a former Metropolitan police officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place. Mike Anderson, the director general of immigration, is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark; and John Vine, the chief inspector, will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened with the checks across the UKBA, how the chain of command in the border force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future. For the sake of clarity, I am happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers. That investigation will begin immediately and will report by the end of January. I will place the terms of reference for the inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

Border security is fundamental to our national security and our policy of reducing and controlling immigration. The pilots run by the UK border force this summer were designed to improve border security by focusing resources on passengers and journeys that intelligence led officers to believe posed the greatest risk. The vast majority of those officers are hard-working, dedicated public servants. Just like all of us, they want to see tough immigration controls and strong enforcement, but they have been let down by senior officials at the head of the organisation who put at risk the security of our border. Our task now is to make sure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting, but the Home Secretary must be heard. I know that these are matters about which Members rightly feel extremely strongly, although in fairness we might note in passing that on Friday Members of the Youth Parliament felt extremely strongly about the five motions on which they spoke, but they listened to each other with courtesy.

[Mrs May]

Our task now is to ensure that those responsible are punished and that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and welcome her agreement to establish an independent inquiry. That inquiry must get to the truth, but it should do so considerably more rapidly than by January.

Reports have already reached me from the UK Border Agency today that the shredders are on and that there is a ban on internal e-mails. Will the Home Secretary look urgently into those allegations, and into what documents perhaps are being shredded and what e-mails deleted in the Home Office and UKBA on this issue? It is also important that the inquiry has access to all communications between Ministers, the Home Office and UKBA. The scope must cover the resource pressures facing UKBA. We now know that 6,500 staff are being cut from the agency, including 1,500 from the border force. We need to know what pressures officials were put under to cut corners as a result and keep queues down with reduced staff.

We also need some answers from the Home Secretary now. In questions earlier and in her statement, she could not tell the House how many people came through our ports and airports this summer without proper checks. On average, 100,000 foreign citizens enter Britain every day. UKBA staff have claimed that reduced checks were in place almost daily from August, lasting at least half of the shift. How many people were not checked against the watch list? How many people did not have their biometrics checked? What is the Home Secretary’s estimate of whether anyone from the watch list entered Britain at that time? Did any convicted criminals or security suspects enter? The truth is that the Home Secretary does not know. She says that we will never know. Even now, she seems to be doing nothing to find out and assess who has entered the country and what the security risk might be.

The Home Secretary has admitted that she took the decision to reduce checks for EU citizens in July—not checking under-18s against the warnings index or doing biometric checks on EU passports—yet she will know that cases have been identified by border officials involving EU citizens, including people involved in organised crime, people trafficking, falsifying passports or removals of children who are wards of court. She made that decision—not Labour Ministers in the past: this Home Secretary—and that decision is her responsibility. She cannot run away from it or hide behind cases from 2004, long before new systems were introduced. She knows that the intention of Labour—and, we had assumed, Conservative—Ministers was to roll out e-Borders and to put the technology in place so that everyone could be properly screened entering and exiting the country, and not only at quiet times. In fact, the immigration Minister claimed in May that 90% of non-EU flights and 60% of EU flights were covered, but it turns out that he meant 90% of flights in the winter or at quiet times in the afternoons.

The truth is that instead of strengthening the checks year on year, as all previous Ministers had committed to do, this Home Secretary decided to water them down, as official Government policy, even though she never told the House. She has blamed officials for relaxing the checks further than she intended, yet she gave the green light for the weaker controls. She claimed in her statement that she did not intend it to be routine not to check the biometric chip in EEA passports, yet I have a copy of the interim operational instruction that she has refused to publish, which states:

“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports, checking all EEA nationals under 18 against the warnings index”.

It adds:

“If for whatever reason it is considered necessary to take further measures, local managers must escalate to the Border force duty director to seek authority for their proposed action.”

So the Home Secretary gave agency staff the green light to go ahead and experiment to meet the pressures from queues, and look how far they went. A member of the Border Agency staff said this morning:

“Every day I let in 10 people who I think there would be a good case against”.

How on earth did Ministers not know about this? How on earth could there be continual complaints from staff for months without the immigration Minister or the Home Secretary knowing what was going on? At best, they were deeply out of touch; at worst, they were complicit in a loss of control at our borders.

This Home Secretary is presiding over growing chaos and corner cutting at our borders: Raed Salah was banned from this country by the Home Office, yet he was allowed to waltz in at Heathrow; 100,000 asylum cases have been written off as just too difficult to deal with; Ministers have now given the green light to an experiment to water down, rather than increase, border controls; and the Home Secretary does not even know how many people entered Britain without proper checks this summer. Thousands of people entered without proper checks, and without the Home Secretary having a clue what was going on. It is no good blaming the previous Government, or blaming officials. This is happening on her watch, these are her decisions, and this is her Government’s mistake. She needs to get a grip and stop passing the buck.

[Mrs May]

I must say that I regret that response from the right hon. Lady. There is no more serious issue than border security, but, instead of engaging with the facts, she has chosen to play party politics. She knows that the checks that I approved and the relaxation of checks, which I did not approve, are two very different matters.

Let me take her points in turn. She alleges that the pilot scheme and the unauthorised actions were the result of cuts. I explained the basis for the pilot scheme in my statement. I would remind her that the last Government were planning to cut the UK Border Agency and that it remains the stated policy of her party in opposition to cut the Home Office budget. She mentioned in passing that the House had not been informed about the pilot programme, but it has never been the policy of any Government to notify the House of operational matters such as those. Her own Government did not notify the House when they introduced a risk-based warnings index policy, or when they let passengers through Heathrow without even looking at their passports.

The right hon. Lady suggests that the problem was related not to unauthorised official actions but to the measures that we piloted in July. Let me remind the House again that, as I said in my statement, these measures allowed greater intelligence-led checks to be made against higher-risk passengers. Does the right hon. Lady think that was wrong; if so, why did the last Government introduce a warnings index policy that allowed risk-based checks back in 2007?

Let me remind the right hon. Lady of what I said. The pilot allowed officials in limited circumstances to use their discretion whether to check the biometric chip of EEA nationals and whether to run EEA nationals’ children travelling in family groups or school groups against the warnings index. Under her Government in similar circumstances, adults were not run against the warnings index, and on at least one occasion at Heathrow the border was opened up, so no checks were made against inbound passengers. She says that officials at UKBA are telling her that they were suspicious about individuals, yet they were being let through. It was clear in the guidance on the policy that for any EEA national or EEA national child against whom suspicion was felt, the officer should do the necessary biometric chip checks or warnings index checks.

The right hon. Lady asked whether the inquiry should include the decisions of Ministers as well as officials. I have already said that I am happy for John Vine’s investigation to look at what decisions were taken by Ministers and when. She asked about the publication of paperwork between Ministers and officials. We will certainly make all the relevant paperwork available to the investigations. I can assure her and the House that the paperwork will show without ambiguity that the relaxation of checks that occurred was not sanctioned by me.

The right hon. Lady asked whether any dangerous individuals had managed to come to Britain. That is a very serious issue; that is why I addressed it in my statement. I made it clear to the House that we are not in a position to be able to say how many people entered who should have been prevented after being flagged by the warnings index. We would have known, however, if anybody had tried to enter the country during the pilot, as the pilot was due to operate, because all adults were run past the warnings index and all non-EEA passengers were checked against that index. It was only EEA nationals’ children travelling with their parents or in a school group who were not automatically run against the warnings index. That is more stringent than the controls put in place by the last Government, who in similar circumstances did not check all adults against the warnings index.

I have said on a number of occasions that there is nothing more important than the security of our border, and I made clear in my statement the measures we are taking to address the lapse. In addition, we are reforming every route to the UK to reduce net migration; we are clearing the asylum backlog; we are improving removals; we are addressing the problem of article 8; and we are creating a border policing command in our National Crime Agency to improve our border security in the long term.

I will take no lectures, however, from the party that gave us a total net migration of more than 2.2 million people, the foreign national prisoners scandal, Sangatte, widespread abuse of student visas, the botched e-Borders contract, a 450,000 asylum backlog, no transitional controls for eastern Europeans, the Human Rights Act and a points-based system that failed to reduce immigration. My task now is to make sure that those responsible for this lapse are properly dealt with and to make sure that border force officials can never take these risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many colleagues wish to participate in the debate on this statement. I know that a fine example of the brevity required will now be provided by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The shadow Home Secretary used the phrase “deeply out of touch” and “complicit in a loss of control at our borders”, which is, of course, a perfect description of Labour policy for the last decade. The Home Secretary made a decision on 22 July this year which only she could make, simply because she is the only person with advice from the security agencies. Can she tell us in broad terms what that advice was?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that security officials were asked about the proposals being put forward and they indicated that they were entirely satisfied with them.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

No one is asking the Home Secretary to take lectures. What she is being asked to do is take responsibility for the shambles over which she is presiding, 18 months into the Government’s term of office. Will she now answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)? How on earth did it come about that neither her immigration Minister nor she spotted that—as she claims—her instructions were not being followed? Does she never talk to immigration officers, or go to a port or an airport?

[Mrs May]

I do indeed go to airports and I do indeed talk to immigration officers, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I find my discussions with immigration officers very fruitful because of the ideas they advance about better measures that we could take to improve security at our borders and reduce immigration, which is, of course, what the Government intend to do. Last week, during a period when the pilot was due to be operating, the chief inspector spoke to the chief executive of UKBA to express his concerns. As a result, conversations were held with the head of the UK border force, which led to the action that is now being taken.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend is taking, including the inquiry that she has instituted. Can she confirm that anyone who has illegally entered the UK as a result of these events will not benefit from an amnesty instituted by Ministers, as happened repeatedly under the last Government? Can she also confirm that such cases will not be allowed to pile up in a backlog of 500,000, as earlier cases did, including the 100,000 to which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) had the gall to refer?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that point. It was the actions of the last Government that led to the build-up of more than 450,000 asylum cases, which has only just been cleared. We are now able to operate a much more efficient asylum system. I can also assure my hon. Friend that this Government are not in favour of allowing an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Last year the Government announced the abandoning of second-generation biometrics; we had not expected them to abandon first-generation biometrics quite so quickly.

I realise that we are dealing with a ministerial graveyard —as some of us know very well—but what monitoring and reporting mechanisms were introduced by Ministers so that they could be informed of the progress of the pilot programme and whether it was being eroded at the edges?

[Mrs May]

We ensured that there would be a proper evaluation of the pilot programme. The point of making it a pilot programme was to establish whether it would indeed be possible to target those who constituted a higher risk in terms of border security, and whether there would be benefits from such action. As I have said, the pilot ended last week, and the full results of the evaluation have not yet been made available.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The Home Secretary read out a litany of occasions on which rules had been relaxed under the last Government. Is she aware of the guidance that was given in each of those cases, and does she believe that that relaxation may have contributed to a laxity in the system which has led officials to feel they need not always follow the rules to the letter?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of some of the guidance that was published at the time, which stated, for instance, that details of EEA nationals arriving on services that had been assessed as low or very low risk should be checked only on a targeted basis. Various relaxations were introduced at the time. I have asked the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency not only to assess what has been happening across the board in terms of checks, but to examine the processes for ensuring that Ministers’ decisions are properly undertaken, recorded, passed down and acted on, and that no one goes further than that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the appointment of John Vine. I also thank the Home Secretary for agreeing to give evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs tomorrow, when we will probe her further on these matters. She will know that successive Select Committee reports have told successive Governments about the culture of complacency that exists at the highest levels of the UK Border Agency, yet senior officials were paid £90,000 in bonuses last year. May I urge her to turn this crisis into an opportunity? If the Vine report suggests a root-and-branch change to the way in which the agency is operating, will she please accept those recommendations—along with the recommendations of the Select Committee—and implement them?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I was, of course, looking forward to appearing before his Select Committee in any case, and as that happens to have fallen at this time, I will, indeed, look forward to answering questions on this matter. There have over the years been reports that have rightly raised concerns about the operation of the UK Border Agency and what has been happening at our borders. I have made it absolutely clear to the chief inspector that I look forward to him not only reporting on what has happened, but bringing forward recommendations on how we can in future better ensure we are maintaining our border security.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Home Secretary expect any of the reviews that she has initiated to recommend that retrospective checks be carried out on any people who got into the UK over the period in question and on whom partial information had been captured, and what would such retrospective checks involve?

[Mrs May]

I do not expect the investigations by Dave Wood and Mike Anderson to come up with such a recommendation, because they are specifically examining what happened in relation to certain individuals. Chief inspector John Vine’s report will tell us in more detail what has happened over the period in question across the board, rather than at just a number of ports. I have to say, however, that I doubt that he will come forward with specific recommendations on any individual.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

From the Home Secretary’s very defensive responses, we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?

[Mrs May]

As I said in my statement, my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Evidence to the Home Affairs Committee showed that while the agency was truly chaotic under the last Government, significant problems remain in respect of its ability to protect our borders properly. It is clear the agency is in need of urgent and real reform. As a start, can the Home Secretary assure me and my constituents that the Government will swiftly press ahead with the creation of a border policing command?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will, indeed, be pressing ahead with the establishment of a border policing command inside the National Crime Agency. I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that the new chief executive of UKBA, Rob Whiteman, who has been in place for five weeks, has already done a lot of work in assessing what changes are required to ensure UKBA staff operate the maximum level of security.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Can the Home Secretary confirm that all airports, including Manchester, were included in the pilot? If so, can she confirm whether those who run Manchester airport and the airlines that operate there were made aware of the pilot?

[Mrs May]

I do not believe that Manchester was included in the pilot, but I will, of course, check that I am right about that because—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It’s your pilot!

[Mrs May]

Yes, it is my pilot, and the arrangements for that pilot were made known to UKBA officials at the various ports where it was operating.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My constituency contains the nation’s second-busiest air gateway, and a majority of my constituents are deeply concerned about immigration. Will the Secretary of State say whether Gatwick was part of the pilot? If so, when her investigations are complete, will she tell us how many people came through during that period? Will she also confirm that national security will always be a greater priority than the length of the queues in immigration halls?

[Mrs May]

Yes, indeed Gatwick was included. It was possible for the pilot to be operated across all the ports; it was not specified for any particular ports. There was a focus on particular ports, but Gatwick was included and I believe that Manchester was too.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does that mean that the airports in Scotland were included? If there are issues for the airports in Scotland, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with Scottish Ministers on this issue?

[Mrs May]

The answer is yes. If, as I say, it is “all the ports”, it includes all the ports, including those in Scotland. I will be happy to be in touch with Scottish Ministers about this.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Lord Glasman, a close adviser of the leader of the Labour party, told us:

“Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is a statement about Government policy. That is the purpose of the exercise, let us be clear.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On Friday, while in my constituency, I received a phone call from someone who had been in the country illegally since 1965. This person had left the country, had been prevented by border officials from coming back in and then recently—on that very day—had been given six months to stay here. It is a question not just of checking these people, but of doing something about them when we see them.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and this is why we have an exercise in place to improve our ability to remove people who are in this country without having a right to be here.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Given the UK Border Agency’s reputation for mishaps and inefficiency, and the sensitivity of this issue, why did the Home Secretary bring this pilot into force without making arrangements for checking at regular and frequent intervals how it was actually working in practice? Why did it take three months before this failure emerged?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in my statement, the pilot was for a limited period of time. It was exactly what it said: a pilot to test whether the operation was going to ensure that we could target higher-risk individuals, rather than routinely checking everybody in certain categories. The evaluation of the pilot would have led to a decision as to whether or not it was appropriate to continue that in any further way. This was for a limited period and the full evaluation was to take place at the end.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is perfectly in order to give very well-paid, high-level senior officials some common-sense discretion, but if they go further than their discretion—further than is authorised by Ministers—and weaken our borders, it is appropriate to look at criminal sanctions for any misconduct?

[Mrs May]

I can say to my hon. Friend that if there is any evidence that the law has been broken and that criminal charges are appropriate, that will be pursued.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary consider the question of staffing levels throughout the UK Border Agency? I am talking about the effect they have in respect of enormous queues at Heathrow and other airports, which become a deterrent to legitimate travellers; the inability of that agency to respond to written inquiries from people, including MPs; and the situation where the agency apparently cannot cope with its work load.

[Mrs May]

As I made clear in my statement, this was not an issue about staffing levels; this was a pilot that was intended to help us understand whether it was possible, with different arrangements, to make more intelligence-led checks on higher-risk individuals. We have made it clear that it is going to be possible to improve the border operations through the use of greater technology—the use of e-gates is an important element in that. The hon. Gentleman refers to letters written by MPs, but I must say to him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is responsible for signing— dealing with—about 60,000 letters on immigration matters each year.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

There has been a catalogue of problems in UKBA for many years, as was shown in a recent Select Committee report before this case took place. We had seen the disasters of the asylum backlog, which has not quite gone away; poor decision making; cases being dropped; and a huge number of successful appeal rates. Fixing this has defeated many previous Home Secretaries, so how can we be sure that this one will resolve it?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to say that over the years—this is the point I have been making—successive Governments have come across difficulties in the operation of UKBA, or its predecessor organisation in the Home Office, in relation to security checks and border controls. This coalition Government are taking the right steps, by establishing the border police command, to strengthen our ability to deal with controls at our border. But, as I indicated in my answer to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), it will of course be for us to look at any recommendations that come from the chief inspector’s investigation in order to see whether further action is necessary to put in place what we all want: a system to ensure that UKBA can maintain the security of our borders in the way we wish.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In her statement, the Home Secretary said that the controls had been relaxed without any ministerial approval, but she did not mention knowledge. Will she confirm whether the Prime Minister, No. 10, she, her Ministers, the permanent secretary at the Department or her private offices had any knowledge whatever of those relaxations and controls?

[Mrs May]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the first I was aware of them was when I was informed by the permanent secretary that action had been taken against Brodie Clark, who is the head of the UK border force.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Will she tell the House which months, on previous performance, saw the most interceptions and whether they were the same months as those we are talking about today?

[Mrs May]

Yes, they are the same months that we are talking about today.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that under this Home Secretary’s watch, something like 100,000 people, possibly including terrorists, have vanished into the undergrowth with nobody knowing where they are? When the Home Secretary said again and again in her statement “without ministerial approval”, was she not admitting that she does not have a grip on her Department? The responsibility ends with her.

[Mrs May]

I have been perfectly clear with the House that I take responsibility for the decisions I have made, and I have done that this afternoon. In the circumstances that have been set out, what we have seen is a pilot that was agreed, and actions going beyond that—unauthorised actions—taking place at our border.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

The Public and Commercial Services Union is alleging that staff cuts and staff shortages caused the relaxation of these rules. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity completely to reject those allegations?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I will take that opportunity. It was clear when the proposals for the pilot were presented to me that the desire was to ensure that more risk-based checks could be made and therefore that we would target resources on higher-risk individuals. In doing that, it could well be possible to improve security, but, of course, evaluating whether that was the case was the purpose of ensuring that this was only a pilot.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Having served as a full-time official in the civil service trade union movement for 26 years, may I say that if a civil servant under the senior civil service had wilfully disobeyed an instruction he would have been guilty of gross misconduct and would have been summarily dismissed? If the matter is as clear-cut as the Home Secretary suggests, will she tell us why Brodie Clark is not facing the same sanction?

[Mrs May]

Because a proper process is being undertaken. Further investigation by Dave Wood is taking place to ascertain the full extent of what happened.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I trust my right hon. Friend to sort out the sloppy and lax management culture that has prevailed at this agency for too long. May I ask about her excellent idea for a border police command? When will it be introduced and how many police will be detailed to it? What the public want now is even more reassurance that our borders are going to be safe.

[Mrs May]

The intention is that the National Crime Agency will be established in 2013. It will be necessary for legislation to go through the House to establish the NCA, and the border police command will be part of the national crime agency. I am not able, at this point, to say how many police will go to the border police command. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, given what has taken place, it is now necessary for us to have another look at exactly what we intend to do with that border police command.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) told Charles Clarke

“because of this culpable failure to protect the safety of the public,”

your

“position is now untenable”—[Official Report, 26 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 575.],

I am afraid he was right. Why is that remark any less right for this Home Secretary today?

[Mrs May]

I think I have explained in my statement and in answers to questions exactly what happened.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In her statement, my right hon. Friend said that border officials were free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chip of EEA passengers. Given that biometrics are meant to speed things up and provide greater security, I and my constituents would want every passport holder with a biometric chip to have their passport checked.

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I should repeat what I said about the biometric chip. The biometric chip holds within it a second photograph. That is all it holds within it. The decision was taken under the pilot to allow discretion to be operated in relation to EEA nationals and the opening of the biometric chip on a risk-based approach. I am sure my hon. Friend would want a border force that ensures it is targeting those who place most at risk individuals living in the United Kingdom.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Is not the real issue that any pilot that relaxes security and immigration checks at our borders is a disaster waiting to happen, and that is what we have—a disaster that has happened?

[Mrs May]

I explained in my statement the reasons for undertaking the pilot and also the fact that during the period that the pilot was undertaken, the number of illegal immigrants who were detected at the border increased. I think that rather improves security.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Government figures show that by 2010 illegal immigration had reached an all-time high of more than 700,000 in our country. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK Border Agency is solely responsible for this shambolic state of affairs?

[Mrs May]

The UK Border Agency is the body responsible for putting in place the policy that is agreed for dealing with immigrants at the borders. The UK Border Agency does very good work—I have seen it for myself at Calais—in intercepting illegal immigrants who are trying to enter this country. It is doing that work on a daily basis to try to ensure that we reduce the number of illegal immigrants. This Government are trying to do something to reduce immigration into this country, to reduce net migration, and also to improve the removal of illegal immigrants so that those who come here with no right to be here are removed from this country.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

The House rightly takes seriously the issue of child trafficking. Can the Home Secretary advise me what evaluation was carried out on the increased risk of child trafficking as a result of the pilot and the increased risk of child trafficking that has occurred as a result of this scandal?

[Mrs May]

The evaluation of the pilot’s impact was intended to demonstrate that. In relation to the possibility of increased child trafficking, I come back to a point that I made earlier. It was clear to officers that it was at their discretion to check children who were coming in, either in family groups or in school groups, and they could follow up any suspicions that they had in relation to that by undertaking those checks.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

We know that the radical Islamist Sheikh Raed Salah walked past UK border controls this summer, despite being on a Home Office banned entry list. Was this connected to the news that we hear today, or was it simply a case of someone not checking his passport?

[Mrs May]

No, it was not connected to the news that I have outlined to the House today. I will be making information available on the issue involving Raed Salah to the Home Affairs Committee.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the issue of who knew what when about the pilot. Did the Prime Minister sanction the pilot going ahead?

[Mrs May]

The decision was taken by me as Home Secretary, together with the Immigration Minister.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that under the previous Government the public lost confidence in Labour’s ability to manage immigration and border controls, and that that drove a significant number of people into the hands of the far right? Does she agree that we should not let the people down in such a way?

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Sadly, the immigration policy of the previous Government led to significant concerns among members of the public. This is an issue that matters to members of the public. It is this coalition Government who are taking action that I believe members of the public want us to take to reduce net migration into this country, to get rid of the abuse of student visas, and to deal with some of the other issues that led to the significant numbers of people coming into this country over the past 13 years under a Labour Government.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady knows more than almost anyone how uniquely serious the security situation is in Northern Ireland. Can she please confirm that Belfast International was not included in the wave-through amnesty?

[Mrs May]

As I have indicated, my understanding is that all ports were included, but I will check that point and write to the hon. Gentleman, given his specific interest in it.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she will not quadruple the number of work permits for non-EU residents, that she will not preside over the growth of hundreds of phoney colleges that bring in phoney students, and that she will not plan a large-scale amnesty?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm all those points. Indeed, far from doing any of those things, this Government are getting rid of the abuse of student visas by ensuring that colleges that have been bringing people in to work rather than to study can no longer do so. It is this Government who have brought in an annual limit on non-EU economic migrants.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Given the concerns about the UK Border Agency, can we be clear about why the Home Secretary did not arrange to monitor this sensitive pilot or, given her wide range of responsibilities, why the Immigration Minister did not do so? Can we also be clear what he signed up to and what he was told? Let us not wait until January for those answers. Will the Home Secretary issue a statement to that effect this week?

[Mrs May]

I have just made a statement in which I set out the timeline for when decisions were made. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have heard it.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

We heard suggestions earlier that documents were being shredded and e-mails were being deleted. What powers will the three inquiries have to ensure that documents are available to them and witnesses can be called to give evidence?

[Mrs May]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the internal inquiry has been ongoing since the first information on the matter was available on Thursday and is continuing. I expect it to be a relatively quick inquiry. The inquiry by the chief inspector is starting today, and I saw him and one of his assistant chief inspectors this morning. They have already started the necessary work for conducting the field work at various ports around the country and will have the full powers available to the chief inspector in normal circumstances.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We have been rather disappointed by the Home Secretary’s answers on Manchester and Belfast airports and the number of people coming into the country. Will she make available to us as soon as possible all the details about the ports and airports involved, the times they were involved and the number of people who came in, rather than waiting until January for an inquiry? She should make it her business to find these things out.

[Mrs May]

I have already indicated that I will make available information about which ports were included.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I hope that the Home Secretary will not mind me saying so, but she sounds today like she is more on autopilot than anything else. Does she recollect being given a report about the pilot at the end of September? If she did not see it, which of her Ministers did?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in my statement, it was decided in the middle of September to extend the pilot until this week. If that is the report the hon. Gentleman is talking about, we of course looked at it and considered whether we should extend the pilot.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

If the Home Secretary agrees that every aspect of this issue should be investigated, will she confirm that the inquiries will consider the resources that are made available to UKBA?

[Mrs May]

The terms of reference for the inquiry by the chief inspector will be placed in the Library, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself exactly what it covers.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary congratulate the front-line UKBA officers who do a brilliant job around the country, including in Dover, and is she aware of Phil Woolas’s comments that his efforts to tighten our borders were opposed by Treasury and Foreign Office Ministers?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I will indeed pay tribute to the work that is done by UK Border Agency officers at our ports, including those who are at Dover. As I made clear in an earlier answer, they do very good work on a daily basis to stop people coming into this country illegally and to seize goods that should not be coming into this country. As I say, those who operate at Dover should be commended for the work that they do on a daily basis.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

If the pilot was to be evaluated, someone must have been collecting information on how it was working. Can the Home Secretary tell us where that information was held, and can she now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) about whether any Minister or ministerial private office knew what was going on?

[Mrs May]

Yes, we were looking at the operation of the pilot, as a full evaluation, at the end of the pilot taking place. Opposition Members have asked on several occasions whether during the course of the pilot it became clear to Ministers that it was being operated not just as requested and authorised, but in another way, and the answer to that is no.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Brodie Clark was governor of Whitemoor prison when five IRA men escaped, yet he was promoted to be the Prison Service head of security and then to head the UK border force. The Home Secretary explains that things will improve under the NCA, but does she agree that confidence in the agency would be bolstered if its head were subject to a parliamentary confirmation hearing?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I suspect that it may choose to return to that issue. As he will know as a member of the Committee, in due course the head of the National Crime Agency will be available to appear before the Committee and to talk about his proposals for the agency, which will include the border police command.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Was there a specific incident that caused Mr Vine to raise his concerns only last week with Mr Whiteman, or did he have concerns during the previous four months? Did he raise them with anyone? Did such individuals raise those issues with the Home Secretary or anyone in her office?

[Mrs May]

The chief inspector had carried out an inspection of a Heathrow terminal, and during that inspection he developed a concern about the consistency of the controls being operated. It was that issue that he raised, and it was following discussions about that issue that what had happened has come out.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier this year I hosted a delegation of Chinese business men and investors, who very politely told me that they felt they had undergone excessive security screening and delays at Heathrow airport. When the Home Secretary introduced this shambolic pilot, did she not consider the message that it might send to legitimate and well-meaning trading partners from other parts of the world, who have undergone a far more rigorous examination?

[Mrs May]

I am not quite certain where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on that particular point, because he seems to complain on the one hand about a pilot with some limited relaxation of controls, and on the other hand about excessive controls.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

This summer, returning from holiday at the end of August along with thousands of others, we arrived at Heathrow, where we were actively discouraged from using the modern technology that the Home Secretary has talked about so frequently in her answers. Will her pilot study indicate exactly what percentage of passengers arriving used the new machines, what percentage went through officials and what percentage of people caught trying to enter illegally went through either the machines or officials?

[Mrs May]

E-gate usage is known—those figures are available—and one of the matters that I have taken up with the UK Border Agency is the extent to which it should encourage people who are able to use e-gates to do so. The hon. Lady’s experience suggests that otherwise has occurred.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary says that she discussed the pilot with the Immigration Minister and the Minister responsible for security, but did she consult ministerial colleagues and security officials at the Department for Transport? If so, what was their advice?

[Mrs May]

The matter related to the operation of border security controls, which is a matter for the Home Office.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am appalled that the Home Secretary set up a pilot at Manchester airport and did not know she had done so. That is extraordinary. Will she now answer without any ambiguity the question that has been asked four or five times: did information come from those pilot schemes into her or any other Minister’s office in the Home Office—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, an evaluation of the pilot was going to take place at the end of the study, so that we could look at how it was operating and whether it was doing what it was expected to do. As I said in my statement, a decision was taken in the middle of September to extend the pilot until November in order to ensure that there was a fuller period of time to make the evaluation.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

How often did the Home Secretary get reports and updates on the progress of the pilot, and how often did she update the Prime Minister on it?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Prime Minister’s involvement, which has been referred to by another hon. Member, and I answered that question: it was a matter for the Home Office and decisions were taken by the Home Office.

M5 Motorway Accident

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

17:36

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the serious collision that took place on the M5 motorway in Somerset on the evening of Friday 4 November.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 20 minutes past 8 on Friday evening, a road traffic collision occurred on the M5 northbound in Somerset involving multiple vehicles. Some of those vehicles subsequently caught fire. The incident occurred between junction 25, Taunton, and junction 24, Bridgwater North, approximately a third of a mile north of junction 25. The emergency services and the Highways Agency responded to the incident immediately, and therefore a large number of emergency service vehicles and resources were able to attend the scene very quickly.

At approximately 9 pm, based on the numbers of casualties and vehicles involved, Avon and Somerset police declared a major incident. Due to the nature of the incident scene, it took some time to confirm exactly how many people and vehicles were involved in the collision. Avon and Somerset police have now confirmed that 37 vehicles were involved in the collision. Tragically, seven people lost their lives. A further 51 people were injured and were treated at Musgrove Park hospital, Yeovil district hospital or at the scene.

I would like again to offer my condolences—and I am sure those of the House—to those who have lost friends or family in that horrific crash, as well as to offer our thoughts to those who have been injured. The families of those who lost their lives are being supported by specially trained family liaison officers from Avon and Somerset police, who will continue to work with them as long as they are needed.

Police investigations on the motorway were completed at 10 minutes past 4 on Sunday 6 November, and the scene was then handed over to the Highways Agency and its contractors to begin repairs to the carriageway.

The collision incident caused a significant amount of damage to the highway: a stretch of 40 metres of road was damaged by fuel spillage from vehicles and a stretch of 60 metres was damaged by intense fire. Two lanes of the southbound carriageway reopened yesterday at 20 past 5 and, following extensive resurfacing works, all lanes on the northbound carriageway reopened shortly before 9 pm. The final remaining lane closure on the southbound carriageway was removed at 20 past 9 last night, and the road is now running in both directions.

The Minister responsible for roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), visited the scene of the incident on Saturday, and I was there yesterday. I was tremendously impressed by the determination and professionalism of staff from the emergency services—police, fire crews and ambulance staff—local hospitals and the Highways Agency. They worked with real dedication in the most difficult of circumstances. Our efforts to deal with the scene also involved the Environment Agency. The way in which all those agencies were able to work together highly effectively was critical in ensuring that those involved in the accident were helped and treated speedily. I pay tribute to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham who, as gold commander, led those efforts.

It was a harrowing and painstaking task for all concerned to deal with the incident, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank massively all those involved for their efforts and bravery, including individual members of the public who were passing or near the incident, some of whom tried to help those trapped in vehicles. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the local community, people and businesses in and around Taunton. From local people and hotels offering to accommodate relatives of those injured and members of the public offering support, to local off-duty hospital staff turning up at their hospitals to help to provide care, it was humbling and inspiring to see how selflessly so many people were willing to offer their support to others who needed it.

It would be a mistake at this very early stage to speculate about the causes of the collision. Investigations into the cause of the crash are still at a very early stage. To put that in context, the recovery phase finished only yesterday, and it is only today that the investigation phase becomes the key focus. While Avon and Somerset police have indicated that the presence of smoke on the carriageway is a significant line of inquiry, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham has been clear that, in his words to me earlier today, it is “far too early” to jump to conclusions on the causal factors of the incident. Our first priority now must be to ensure that the police are able to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the crash.

As I said, earlier today I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, whose Avon and Somerset force is leading the ongoing investigation. He told me that, given the large number of vehicles involved, and the need carefully to look at the vehicles recovered and of course to talk to the many witnesses, it may be some weeks until the investigation can conclude on any cause or causes of the incident. The police continue to appeal for witnesses, and I encourage anyone with any information to contact the police directly on 101 or by calling Crimestoppers on 0800 500 111.

I would like to emphasise to the House the extremely high priority that I attach to road safety. The UK has a proud tradition as a world leader on road safety, and that is a tradition that I am determined to continue. Although the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, the horrific crash on Friday has reminded us of the terrible personal consequences of collisions for motorists and local communities. Earlier this year, the Government published a road safety framework that commits us to a range of activities that will enable us to do even better in future. We will of course take full account of any lessons from this terrible collision in developing our future policies and supporting the future safe travel of people.

The safety of our roads also requires effective partnership working across a wide range of organisations—national and local government, police and emergency services, and many others. We need to work together effectively if we are going to do the best job we can of ensuring that people stay safe on our roads. Over the coming weeks, and going beyond any lessons that may be learned from this particular incident, I will be considering carefully our forward plans on road safety to ensure that we have the right measures in place to deliver real and urgent progress on tackling the continuing blight of death and injury on our roads. I commend this statement to the House.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for early sight of it. I am sure that we would both have preferred the circumstances of her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport to be different, but may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment? I wish her well in her new role, and I am sure that her decision to visit the scene of this horrific incident over the weekend will have been appreciated, as will the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), particularly by those still working to deal with the aftermath. May I associate Labour Members with the sympathy that the Secretary of State expressed for those who have lost loved ones and those who have suffered injuries in this tragedy?

I join the right hon. Lady in thanking the emergency services in Somerset. Tales of extraordinary bravery have emerged from what must have been a terrifying situation, and yet again we have been reminded of the professionalism and dedication of our emergency services. I also add our thanks to the staff of Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton and Yeovil district hospital. They provided an exceptional response after the incident and are continuing to provide the first-class care that we have come to expect and rely on from our national health service.

This is one of the worst road accidents we have suffered for many years, and it is right that the police must now be able to carry out the very thorough investigation they have begun into the cause of this tragedy. The truth is that we do not know today whether there were steps that could have been taken to prevent the incident. We must await the conclusions of the investigation and avoid the temptation to rush to judgment.

While families are struggling to come to terms with their devastating loss and victims lie injured, I do not believe it is the right time to pass judgment on specific policies. The Secretary of State said that lessons will be learned for future policy development. Will she confirm that the conclusions of the investigation into this incident will be fully considered before steps are taken to advance any of her Department’s proposals that she has inherited that may have a bearing on road safety?

The Secretary of State referred to the dramatic fall in the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads over previous years. However, she will have noticed the increase in deaths over the last year, which was reported just last week. That is something of which she and this House need to take particular note. She should know that she will have the full support of the Opposition if she brings a renewed focus to the challenge of reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has yet discussed this incident with the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in his place, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills? Have they confirmed whether they intend to review the licensing regime for public events, firework displays and bonfires? Following the fire under the M1 in April, the then Secretary of State for Transport promised a review of the wider lessons that should be learned about the activities that we allow to take place under motorways. Will the right hon. Lady update the House on that work and on any conclusions that have been reached? Will she consider widening that work to consider activities alongside, as well as underneath, our motorways?

Finally, I would be grateful for an assurance that the Secretary of State will make a further statement to the House following the conclusion of the investigation. It is important that there is an opportunity to discuss these issues more fully than feels appropriate today. I thank her for ensuring that the House has been updated at the earliest possible opportunity following this tragedy.

[Justine Greening]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words welcoming me to my new role. As she says, it is a shame that I arrived at the Dispatch Box under these circumstances.

In response to the points that the hon. Lady made, of course we will consider the lessons that can be learned from this incident, if there are any. As she pointed out, the most important thing is to ensure that the police can get on with their investigation as it unfolds. It is worth reiterating her point that, for the families of people who have been injured and particularly for the families who have lost relatives, it is important that we do not speculate unnecessarily about what might have caused the accident.

On road safety, the hon. Lady pointed out last quarter’s figures, which showed a rise in fatalities. It is also fair to point out that in the 12 months to the end of June, we continued to see an overall reduction in fatalities and injuries on our roads, so the trend is moving in the right direction. The challenge for this House is to ensure that that does not level off and that we take steps to ensure that the figures come down further, as far as possible.

The hon. Lady’s question about licensing arrangements slightly prejudges where the police investigation may end up. She has made the point that there is a question over whether this event falls under the Licensing Act 2003 as a regulated event. That is clearly something that the police and the local authority will consider.

If the police investigation that is under way presents any conclusions that I think it is important for this House to consider, I will of course come back and make a statement. It is possible that the police will conclude that they cannot say absolutely what caused the collision. However, if there are meaningful lessons and conclusions that it is worth this House discussing, I will ensure that we have a follow-up statement.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

If I may, I will pay tribute to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is in his place, because it is the nightmare of every MP to face such a tragedy. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State made it clear that this matter will be thought through logically. One worry is that, as the M5 is the most important arterial route in our county, whatever happens to the M5 affects the whole county. When decisions are made, I ask the Secretary of State please to consult the MPs with constituencies along the M5, so that we have some input into any recommendations that are put forward by the police and the Highways Agency for the future of the road.

[Justine Greening]

I very much hope that we will be able to have an ongoing dialogue with local MPs about the effectiveness of any measures that end up being proposed. Frankly, I would expect that about any key proposals that affect any Member’s local public transport.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady says that the road death figures are still heading in the right direction, but my reading of the latest figures was that, even before this terrible crash, we were looking at the first annual increase in road deaths that this country has seen for 20 years. As she will know, that is deeply worrying to road safety campaigners and others. Will she at the very least have another look at her predecessor’s plan to encourage faster speeds on the motorways by increasing the speed limit?

[Justine Greening]

To go back over the figures on road safety, of course it is concerning that the most recent quarter’s figures that have been released showed such a rise, but we should still not lose sight of the fact that the trend is in the right direction. We should also be conscious of the fact that levels of road safety can, of course, be affected by the weather, so it is not quite as straightforward as simply saying from looking at those figures that there is an underlying reduction in road safety compared with previous quarters.

One key point to recognise in relation to those numbers and the right hon. Gentleman’s point about speed is that people can drive unsafely at any speed and in any weather conditions. It is important that we do not jump to a conclusion when the police still have to examine the causes of the accident, and that we ensure that we have a measured discussion about action that could be taken in future months to improve road safety. We as a House need to have that discussion in a responsible and balanced way.

[Mr David Laws (Yeovil) (LD)]

I join the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), as well as the other local MPs, in congratulating the emergency services on their fantastic response to Friday’s tragedy. From a Yeovil perspective, I particularly pay tribute to the many people from my constituency, including at Yeovil hospital, who did fantastic work on Friday night and Saturday morning.

Although the Secretary of State is absolutely right not to leap to conclusions when we do not know the full facts, there are undoubtedly many positive lessons to be learned from the response of the emergency services on Friday and Saturday. I hope that she will undertake to ensure that that best practice is spread to all emergency forces across the United Kingdom.

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. During both my trip to the scene and local hospitals and that of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, the point was constantly made to us about the extremely effective way in which a number of different agencies had worked together. For example, at the hospital that I visited in Taunton, staff talked to me about how they had in place an emergency process for dealing with such an incident, and it worked extremely well when an incident finally happened. There are best practice lessons to be taken from that, and we will certainly work to ensure that they are disseminated to other agencies across the rest of the country. I hope that the Highways Agency will play a key role in that.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to road safety, because every single death is a tragedy. May I ask her to look again at the framework that her Department has developed? I believe that there has unfortunately been a tendency to see an increase in safety measures, such as better eyesight testing, as a burden rather than as something that will save lives.

[Justine Greening]

In all this we must strike the right balance, but I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I take incredibly seriously the issue of safety not just on the roads but across the transport system. I will take a very careful look at it to ensure that we always strike that balance. The strategic framework for road safety that we published in May contained a number of steps in the right direction. I would of course like to consider what more we can do, but we have, for example, increased fixed penalty notice fines for many motoring offences. The fixed penalty notice fine for speeding had not risen since 2000. The Government are taking a number of steps to ensure that we have a very proactive approach to road safety.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that the M5 is the major spine road into Devon and Cornwall, and is very busy in both directions. This appalling tragedy has been a real shock to all of us on the peninsula. May I therefore commend her for her calm and measured way of responding to the crisis, and join her in thanking the emergency services? In particular, I thank the Highways Agency for getting the road back together again so quickly.

[Justine Greening]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. It is actually a stretch of road that I know very well. In fact, I had driven along it myself only two weekends before. He is absolutely right that we should pay tribute to the Highways Agency, which did an outstanding job in being ready to work with the police and then, critically, in taking the necessary steps once the police had released the scene. The agency not only ensured that the highway was safe for motorists to get back on the southbound carriageway as quickly as possible, but took steps to re-lay the northbound carriageway, which took just five to six hours. That meant that we were able to get that carriageway opened on Sunday night rather than Monday morning.

I should also say that the Highways Agency did an excellent job on the Friday evening of ensuring that the motorists who were not directly involved in the accident but were held up as a result of it were safely and gradually escorted away from the scene.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the words of condolence to all the families affected and the words of praise for all those involved in what must have been horrific? I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will know—hopefully he has whispered it in the ear of the Secretary of State—about the very positive impact that the Heavy Rescue Partnership has had, saving lives in association with Staffordshire fire and rescue. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the investigation will consider whether the availability of such an approach might have made the difference on the night of that terrible incident?

[Justine Greening]

We will consider all such issues going forward, so the answer is yes.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) in his comments about the emergency services, and I wish particularly to point out the contribution made by the family liaison officers who work in such circumstances.

I was present at the time on the southbound carriageway, and I saw what had happened as I was drawing off the road at the Taunton junction. I do not think I have ever seen anything like what I saw on Friday evening. It was an absolute inferno, and it was impossible for me to leave the car on the southbound carriageway to do anything.

Will the Secretary of State commend the bravery of two of my constituents, both of whom are in their 20s—a young man called Sam Jones and another gentleman by the name of Tom Hamill? Both played their part in rescuing people from the vehicles, particularly Tom, who I understand saved the life of a very small baby. I thank them for doing that.

[Justine Greening]

I pay tribute again to members of the public who, in many cases, selflessly put themselves in the way of harm to help and save others. We have all read of the many acts of heroism that people instinctively performed to help those whom they saw in need. In a world in which there is a lot of discussion about a big society, the fact that people’s instinct when they saw such a tragedy unfolding was to run towards it and try to help says an awful lot about the spirit of local communities up and down our country, particularly in Taunton.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join in the heartfelt tributes paid to my constituents and neighbours Tony and Pamela Adams, who died in the accident? We can all empathise with them—they were on a journey that they had made many times before, but within seconds a normal situation descended into hell on earth. They were not just another statistic; they were two lovely people who had been sweethearts for 50 years. They were stalwarts of the Allt-yr-yn community and their local church, St Mark’s. In fact, Tony had organised the order of service for yesterday. No one is expecting any instant solutions from the Government, but may we take it that we as parliamentarians will understand the immeasurable loss to the family and friends, and say that we will do all we can to ensure by the decisions that we take that an accident of this kind is less likely in future?

[Justine Greening]

Yes. I once again send my condolences to that family. There is very little that anybody can say to their relatives at the moment that will provide any real comfort under the circumstances of this tragedy. As the hon. Gentleman points out, it happened instantaneously, which is a particular challenge for families who lose people in such circumstances. I can assure him that, as I have said to the House already, I take road safety and safety across our transport system incredibly seriously, and I will ensure that if there are any lessons to be learned, they will be acted upon, although we must wait for the outcome of the police investigation.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I echo the condolences offered by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the families who have been badly affected. Connectivity with the peninsula not only by railway but by road is a very big issue. The M5 is the only arterial dual carriageway that goes the whole way down. Is my right hon. Friend willing to meet me and people from the south-west to discuss how we can improve that connectivity, and to find ways to ensure that when the motorway is closed, as it had to be, we can get to and from places much more easily?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for roads and I will be quite happy to have that meeting. The broader point that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) makes on resilience is critical. We saw the challenges for the road network in that area last year. Although my visit yesterday was to show support for the emergency services and the Highways Agency and the wonderful work they had done, I took the opportunity to raise initially some questions on winter resilience for that area, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Road Safety, the transport safety charity, I welcome the Secretary of State to her new job. We look forward to working with her on safety issues on a cross-party basis.

This tragic accident reminds us all that speed does kill, and hon. Members must think very carefully about it. I hope that when we analyse—[Interruption.] Yes, we must carefully analyse this accident. I hope that one specific thing that the Secretary of State’s experts look at is the fire. It is very unusual in road accidents to have fires of that intensity. Many of us in road safety campaigning organisations have been worried for some time about the vulnerability of the fuel tanks of commercial vehicles. Will she ensure that she looks at that, and will she consider the restoration of the road safety partnerships?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the fire was a significant factor in the number of fatalities and it is fair to say that it was a particularly unusual occurrence. He asks about fuel tanks on heavy goods vehicles. As he will be aware, there are a number of regulations on ensuring that HGVs are safe, and he will be interested to know that EU harmonisation rules mean that over the next three years those standards will become even tougher. I am very happy to talk with the hon. Gentleman, who has an interest in this area, to see how we can maintain a balanced and informed debate on how to improve road safety.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I add my name to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in commenting on our sympathy for the bereaved and our praise of the security and emergency services in Somerset, particularly the Avon and Somerset constabulary? May I also thank the Secretary of State for being calm in her approach and for being willing to look at the evidence, particularly in relation to the 80 mph speed limit? I do not think that now is the time to be dwelling on those issues, but a full and thorough review must be the right way forward.

[Justine Greening]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Critically, we must bear in mind that safe driving on motorways is not simply about the maximum speed limit; it is also about smart driving—not driving too close to people in front and braking in a way that is not too quick and that surprises motorists behind. There are an awful lot of different aspects of safe driving on motorways. In fact, we are already considering whether we can ensure that learner drivers have some experience of driving on motorways as part of their training. That proposal has been put to us. We can do a number of things to improve the situation. Clearly, it is important for individual drivers at all times to bear in mind that although there is a speed limit, they must drive according to the conditions of the road and the weather.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

May I thank both Front Benchers for voicing so clearly the sentiments felt on both sides of the House for all those involved? Crash barriers save lives, and they are particularly well designed in the UK. We can see from the pictures that the crash barriers prevented vehicles from going on to the southbound carriageway. However, a degree of compression was caused by having crash barriers on both the hard shoulder and the central reservation, where we expect them to be. Such compression exacerbates the potential for fire to spread, as people are funnelled into a particular spot. As part of the Secretary of State’s investigation, will she look at whether having crash barriers on both sides of the road had any impact on the spread of fire among vehicles?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is right to point out that the Highways Agency must manage risks. The crash barriers are on the side of that particular stretch of motorway because there is a steep bank. She raises the issue of the compression of vehicles, but alternatively, had the barrier not been there, the risk is that vehicles would have gone down the bank. Nevertheless, the police were quite careful to ensure that they looked around the banks to see whether there were any injured people or fatalities who were not on the motorway itself. The Highways Agency takes a risk-based approach to such things, which is what it had done on that particular stretch of motorway.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I agree with the whole House on our heartfelt sympathy for those who lost loved ones in this absolutely terrible crash. I congratulate the emergency services, which were there within four minutes, which is an excellent response. As other hon. Members have said, the M5 is the great arterial road into the south-west. However, we need to look not only at the M5, but at the A30 and A303, because they are also major roads into the west country.

[Justine Greening]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is important that we look across the road network to ensure that roads are maintained safely. As I have said, it is important that we wait for the police to go through their investigation into this particular incident, which could take some weeks, before we can draw conclusions on any actions that need to be taken.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

This tragic accident is a salutary reminder to every single one of us just how easy it is to go from cruising along a motorway to ending up in a pile-up. Although I would not make any comment on the initial causes—it is not appropriate for any of us to do so—and although I hear what the Secretary of State says on the complexity of the speed issue, will she remember that faster speeds mean longer stopping distances and greater impacts on collision, and will she abandon plans to raise the speed limit on the motorways?

[Justine Greening]

As I have said, it is far too early to jump to conclusions about the possible cause or causes of the accident, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that I take road safety incredibly seriously, so I shall, of course, always ensure that I am happy that the measures that we introduce are appropriate.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services and in offering my condolences to those affected by this terrible tragedy. Stopping distances are critical. A growing trend on all motorways is the fact that cars drive in such close proximity one behind the other. May I invite her to consider the increased use of chevrons painted on the road, which encourage individuals to think more carefully about their distance from the car in front, allowing that critical stopping distance and therefore saving lives?

[Justine Greening]

We are in the middle of several pilots considering whether chevrons can help drivers work out how much space they need. One of the challenges is that heavy goods vehicles need much longer stopping distances than cars, which is something to bear in mind as well, because there is no point in cars stopping in time after an accident if the HGVs behind have not left themselves enough stopping distance.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on how she has approached this subject, and echo the comments that have been made today. There will be a report, and I thank her for saying that she will return to the Chamber, but will she also indicate whether she will include Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, so that best practice can be rolled out throughout the UK?

[Justine Greening]

I shall ensure that we share best practice more broadly. Obviously, I know that the devolved authorities take their own decisions in this area, but I think that they will be happy to learn any lessons that can be learned.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

This major incident involved emergency services from across the region. I pay tribute to them. What support will be available to them and to members of the public, including one or two of my constituents, involved in this terrible tragedy?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. It was one that I particularly raised with the local hospitals involved, Assistant Chief Constable Bangham and the Highways Agency, and I can provide reassurance that the necessary support will be in place. Of course the emergency services are used to dealing with very serious and harrowing accidents, but they would recognise that this was a particularly large and challenging one. Although many people in the emergency services have attended many such accidents in the past, there are some accidents that require support to be in place, and this was one of them.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Emma Barton lies in hospital in a coma. She lost her mother a few months ago, and she lost her father and sister in this accident. It is easy in these debates to think of such accidents merely as statistics, so I want to put on the record my condolences to any family she has left, and to her friends and other relatives. I commend the tone in which the Secretary of State made her statement today. Will she join me in ensuring that any additional services that may be required for people involved will be provided?

[Justine Greening]

I can absolutely confirm that. I understand that Emma Barton’s boyfriend is with her in the hospital. My hon. Friend’s points underline how for some people this is an unfolding drama: there are some in hospital who, because of their condition, are unaware that they have lost their nearest and dearest. That is another reason why it is right to approach any debate on road safety in an incredibly sensitive manner until the police have had time to conduct their investigation.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Successive Governments over the past 40 years can be commended on how they have approached road safety. The number of road deaths last year was the lowest since records began 85 years ago, and by the time the previous Labour Government left office, the annual death toll on our roads had been virtually halved. The Secretary of State said that she attached an extremely high priority to road safety, and I welcome that, but there is no need to speculate because it is clear from all the evidence that if an 80 mph speed limit is introduced on our motorways, if moving traffic is allowed on to hard shoulders, and if there is a reduction in the frequency of MOT vehicle roadworthiness tests, the number of deaths, injuries and crashes will rise. Given the increase in the number of serious injuries and deaths in recent months, does she agree that it would be criminal to pursue those three objectives?

[Justine Greening]

There is not much that I would like to add at this point. We need to let the police get on with their investigation, rather than prejudging what they might say were the causes of the collision. The other point is that the pilot on hard shoulder running, on the M42, proved it to be safer.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The public tragedy of these seven deaths, so far, needs to be considered alongside the 35 private tragedies—the average number of deaths per week—in comparison with the 107 deaths each week 25 years ago. I commend my right hon. Friend for saying that we want to look for the causal factors and then consider what further measures we can take. However, will she get the Government to consider whether the question of the change from summertime to wintertime, which brings with it an average death cost in this country of 70 lives a year—two weeks’ worth of deaths—is worth returning to in time? I do not want an answer, or a promise to do it, straight away, but that is one of the decisions that the House could take, and it would save a significant number of lives.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend, as a former Minister with responsibility for roads, always has an important point to make. I am aware of the arguments about daylight saving time—there are arguments on both sides—but obviously we have to be conscious of how any change would affect not just the south of our country but the north. I have no doubt that we will continue to have that debate over the coming months.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about considering road safety measures more generally and not just speed limits, but may I urge her, as part of her review, to consider the system in France, where they have two levels of mandatory speed limit on motorways—an 80 mph limit for fair-weather driving and a considerably lower limit for adverse conditions?

[Justine Greening]

I have considered that. In fact, I was in discussion with the AA over the weekend to hear its views on HGVs and the speed limit. It has supported variable limits. However, it made another point too. Organisations such as the AA think that drivers can take decisions for themselves about the right speed to drive at, and that is something that we should be trying to build upon. It is important that drivers take responsibility for driving in a way appropriate for the road conditions.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

In the context of getting to the truth of what happened in this dreadful accident, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether CCTV or traffic cameras were in operation along that stretch of the M5? If so, are they being used as part of the inquiry?

[Justine Greening]

When I went to the Highways Agency yesterday I saw some of the monitors on which the footage from those CCTV cameras can be viewed. People are viewing that footage, but the main challenge is that it was dark, which means that the information in the images is less than was hoped for. None the less, that footage will definitely be looked at to see whether it can provide any information that can feed into the inquiry.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I associate myself with the words of sympathy being expressed across the House. Does the Secretary of State agree that while the facts remain uncertain and emotions remain so raw, it is inappropriate for lobbyists and lobby groups to use this terrible tragedy to further their own campaigns?

[Justine Greening]

We all need to be conscious of our responsibility to approach road safety in a balanced, informed and sensitive way, given the tragic collision on the M5 on Friday, and I hope that the House will show leadership in doing just that.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I was travelling southbound on the M5 in Somerset on Friday evening and was diverted from the motorway, which meant that thankfully, unlike the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), I did not have to see the incident that led to loss of life. However, I did see a multiple collision in queuing traffic, which added to the demands on the emergency services that night. As part of a review, will the Secretary of State consider what steps could be taken to improve warnings and information for other road users, so that they can be better prepared for what is up ahead?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of information. It is not just when there are accidents that it is good to give motorists additional information so that they can make their own decisions about how to avoid a congested area. I would also like to look into how we can get better information to motorists on a daily basis, because it can help whatever the driving circumstances.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place, endorse her remarks, echo her condolences to the families, and commend her statement. It is absolutely right to take a calm and measured approach towards making road safety the key priority. Given some of the increases in braking technology, for instance, I am sure that she will have the support of the whole House if she does not rush to early conclusions on the remarks about speed at this stage.

[Justine Greening]

We have always said that any decision we took would follow a consultation, and that is right. These are important areas to get right, and they require a balanced approach. That means understanding all the downsides and upsides before any final decision is taken. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that we will go through the right process before we take any decisions.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I would like to add my condolences to those affected by this awful tragedy, which is a serious reminder of the continuing toll on our roads. Just last year, in 2010, there were 1,850 deaths and more than 200,000 injuries, or some 600 every day. Mechanical failure contributed to some of those casualties. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the success of the MOT test, which helps to improve safety standards?

[Justine Greening]

The MOT test has been in place for many years, and of course it plays a role in ensuring that cars are roadworthy. However, we should also recognise its limitations, and the fact that motorists will always need to take the necessary steps to ensure that their vehicles are roadworthy in between tests. If there are indications to suggest that a vehicle is not roadworthy, it is the motorist who has the responsibility to ensure that it is checked by a local garage.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Twenty-nine years ago I had the sad responsibility of identifying several friends who had been killed in circumstances similar to those on the M5 last Friday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not forget those who had the sad responsibility, if not duty, of identifying their friends or family members, or the calm courage that they needed to go through that awful process?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is one of the reasons why we have to approach this in a measured way. In fact, the formal identification process is still under way for many of those families. Only once we have got through that, and the pathology, can the coroner for the south-west start his inquest, which we would hope can take place later this week. Many of us cannot even begin to understand what it would be like to go through such a traumatic experience, and we always have to bear that in mind.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is fortunate to have as the Minister with responsibility for roads the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who, as a former professional firefighter, brings his personal knowledge and experience to this issue. We have heard from several Members today that one of the sad features of this tragedy was the extent of the flames and the inferno that resulted. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiry asks not just how we can prevent such crashes from happening, but how we can prevent vehicles from bursting into flames?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right on two counts. First, we have a Minister with responsibility for roads who is perhaps uniquely placed to bring his insights to bear in dealing with such incidents. His visit to the site the day after the accident was vital in giving us the assurance that the necessary steps were being taken. In relation to the fire, there is no doubt that the police will look into not just the precise circumstances that led to the collision, but why things unfolded as they did. As I have said, HGV fuel tank standards will be toughened and get progressively better over the next three years. That is obviously good news, and appropriate, and if there are further lessons to be learned, they will be.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

May I join in the expressions of condolence? What is the scope for increasing the number of miles of lit motorway in this country?

[Justine Greening]

Again, there is a danger of jumping to what the solutions could be following the police investigation. Suffice it to say, however, that I am of course open-minded about taking any steps that we think can improve road safety and ensure that we maintain—indeed, improve—our road safety record.

Localism Bill (Money) (No. 2)

Queen’s Recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Localism Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act.—(Jeremy Wright.)

LOCALISM BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Localism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 17 January 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme)) and 17 May 2011 (Localism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm at this day’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Question agreed to.

Localism Bill

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a substantial number of Lords amendments, which will be listed in the Official Report. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

[Following are the Lords amendments in which financial privilege is involved: 3 to 12, 23, 29, 40, 49, 50, 54 to 60, 62, 64, 66 to 69, 72, 74 to 115, 131, 148, 150, 157 to 165, 225, 226, 250 to 254, 257, 260, 294, 295, 302, 312, 334, 335, 337 to 344, 349, 371, 376, 377, 387, 389, 395, 399 to 402.]

Clause 9

General powers of certain fire and rescue authorities

18:27

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 13, 231 to 233, 242 and 399 to 403.

[Greg Clark]

For the best part of a century, most Bills that have passed through this House have taken power from communities and councils and given more power to central Government, or in some cases to European government. This is an historic Bill, not just for the measures it contains but for what it represents. It is about striking out in a different direction. Power should be held at the lowest possible level. We want this to be the first Parliament for many years that, by the end of its Sessions, will have given power away.

That is true for many of the Bill’s provisions—the community right to challenge; the community right to bid for assets of public value; the abolition of regional spatial strategies; the introduction of neighbourhood planning—but nowhere is it more significant than in clause 1, which deals with the general power of competence. The general power of competence changes the default position. Currently, local government exists to do the things that central Government require it to do. Clause 1 turns that default position upside down. Local government can do the things that it thinks are right, unless they are positively banned. What is not forbidden is permitted. The question for councils is not, “Can we do this?” but, “How can we make it happen?”

18:30

I am pleased to see across the Chamber veterans of our many hours in Committee, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). The Bill has enjoyed 70 hours of scrutiny in the House of Commons and 105 hours of scrutiny in their lordships’ House. It has also been the subject of advice from many outside groups. As colleagues who served on the Committee will know, I have always taken the view that, if we are going to make use of that parliamentary time and engage with a large number of submissions from outside groups, it behoves the Government to listen to the sensible suggestions that have been made, and to the constructive advice we have received, with an open mind.

There is a form of Bill-handling in which it is seen as the Bill Minister’s responsibility to carry the Bill through its every parliamentary stage as though it were a Ming vase, to repel boarders and to keep people away from it so that emerges intact at the other end. That has never been my view. I think that it is right to listen to constructive suggestions, of which there have been many during the Bill’s progress.

I want to pay tribute to the scrutiny that all members of the Committee performed. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is not in her place tonight, because she approached her responsibilities with the utmost dedication and forensically scrutinised the Bill. We all know that the Opposition lack the excellent resources provided to the Government by civil servants, so I would like to pay tribute to her leadership on the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. We do, however, have the benefit of the presence of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, although the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has been moved to other duties. He is therefore the last man standing, and I am glad that our team is intact. Much rests on his shoulders, and we are grateful for his contribution.

In the House of Commons Committee, we strengthened the Bill, especially in relation to the duty to co-operate. We had some very productive discussions on that, in which we established agreement with hon. Members across the House. On Report, we said that we would consider the neighbourhood planning aspects of the Bill in the House of Lords, because some of the amendments that were suggested by Members on both sides of the House required greater technical reflection. Many of the amendments that we shall consider today deal with those matters.

The process has been productive. Looking at the report of the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords, I was struck by some of the comments. Lord Best, speaking on behalf of the Cross Benchers this time last week, said that

“the key role of this House in scrutinising legislation has been wonderfully illustrated by the progress of the Localism Bill. I have been given a list of 10 major issues that were originally of considerable concern to the Local Government Association, for example, and on which that body, representing local authorities up and down the land, now feels reassured and to a very large degree satisfied with the legislation as it now appears. The same kind of list could have been devised by a number of external agencies, with the same satisfaction rating at the end of that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1106.]

Lord Tope, my noble Friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches, said that

“we are now sending something like 100 pages of amendments back to the Commons. What is more notable is that all those amendments have been passed without the need for a vote; in other words, we have truly reached consensus.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1107.]

The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, Lord McKenzie of Luton, said:

“It has been a listening team, which has boded well for the outcome of the Bill… The Government have listened to the voices of experience and common sense.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1108.]

That has been our demeanour throughout the proceedings, and it will continue to be our demeanour as we approach the matters before us today. I see from the amendment paper that suggestions from colleagues on both sides of the House have serious thought behind them, and I will respond to them constructively and positively.

Having dealt with the general power of competence, let me turn to some of the amendments in the group, starting with those that cover transport. There was extensive discussion in the other place on the general powers, and it was argued that the general power of competence should be extended beyond the local authorities that were in the original drafting of the Bill. Lords amendments 4, 5 and 7 therefore extend broad new powers to the integrated transport authorities and their passenger transport executives. These points were also raised by Opposition Front Benchers in Committee. The provisions will enable authorities to undertake ancillary and possibly joint activities outside their geographic boundaries, for example. This will improve and strengthen the Bill in the direction that we have set out, and I am pleased to commend those Lords amendments to colleagues today.

We agree with Lords amendment 6, which proposes to extend the general powers of competence to, for example, combined authorities. We know that Greater Manchester has established very satisfactory arrangements for joint working, and it is reasonable that those powers should be extended to such arrangements. Lords amendments 8 to 13, 242 and 399 to 402 have been termed collectively the “core cities” group of amendments. They represent a significant breakthrough. During the passage of the Bill, it was clear to those on all sides that we had an opportunity to embed mechanisms to allow the future devolution of power from central Government to local government. Working over the summer with the representatives of the Core Cities Group and the leaders of local authorities, from all parties, across the country, we were able with the co-operation of Front Benchers of all parties represented in the House of Lords to agree a set of amendments that will allow for the transfer of public functions and the delegation to local authorities, by agreement and subject to a super-affirmative procedure.

This is an important new power. It will allow us to enact, without the need for primary legislation, agreed transfers of power between local authorities and central Government. Those transfers of power might not be obvious today. I have encouraged particular cities across the country to consider which powers that are currently held by central Government they could usefully discharge themselves. This mechanism will give us the opportunity to allow them to do so, and I should like to put on record my gratitude to the leaders and officers of the Core Cities Group for their help.

A few technical amendments in this group respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On Second Reading and in Committee, we had much to say about the so-called Henry VIII powers that were to be made available to the Secretary of State. My view at the time was that we should go through them individually, and that those that were proved unnecessary or superfluous should be removed as the Bill progressed through the House.

We have delivered on that commitment. A substantial number of those powers have now been narrowed in scope or, in some cases, removed. For example, Lords amendment 231 will ensure that orders made under the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure. That power will allow the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any power that overlaps with the general power of competence, but it will require the affirmative procedure to be employed. Lords amendment 232 will remove an exception that permitted orders to be accepted through the negative resolution procedure. I will not go through all the amendments, but I think that Members will acknowledge, as did their lordships, that we have responded to the concerns that many hon. Members expressed about the nature of the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. Benign though the present Secretary of State is, there was a fear that some future Secretaries of State might not be as localist in their intentions. Those provisions will now be safeguarded in the Bill.

The final amendment in the group will remove all doubt that fire and rescue authorities should not be able to charge for community fire safety advice or for fire prevention activity. This matter was raised in the other place by Baroness Smith of Basildon, a former fire Minister, and we have been pleased to introduce the provision.

I am grateful for their lordships’ scrutiny. I am especially grateful to the Front-Bench team that represented the Government so well. It was led by Baroness Hanham and supported by Lord Taylor, Lord Attlee and Lord Shutt. We urge colleagues to agree to the Lords amendments in this group.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Minister always sounds terribly reasonable and persuasive, and one could almost fall for his view that the Bill is a Ming vase. In fact, it is really a dodgy, cracked, second-hand urn. He has had to amend it hugely in the other place.

I do not wish to detain the House too long on this group of amendments, as we have a lot to discuss, but I want to put on record the fact that we are deeply concerned at having only three and a half hours tonight in which to discuss more than 400 amendments. The Minister referred to the scrutiny that the Bill has already had, and we absolutely accept that several statements had to be made today, but we had hoped that the Government would extend the time available for these discussions. Dealing with over 400 amendments in three and a half hours really does not improve parliamentary scrutiny. It was heartening when we constantly heard from the Prime Minister before the election how much he wanted to return to Parliament many of its powers and to improve parliamentary scrutiny—but we have never seen it from this Government. We did not see it with the Health and Social Care Bill and we are not seeing it with the Localism Bill.

The Minister would have us believe that this is an historic Bill that returns power to the lowest level. In fact, it is not. It is a Bill about centralising power and devolving the blame. [Interruption.] I knew I would upset the Minister eventually; it was only going to be a matter of time. We welcome some of the Lords amendments, but we have to make it clear that we still think this Bill is shambolic and has not been thought through. The fact that the Government had to make so many amendments in the other place shows how little they thought about it to start with.

Let me deal with some of the issues in this group of amendments. We welcome the extension of powers for integrated transport authorities and passenger transport executives and for combined authorities, for which we argued in Committee, as the Minister will remember. It is a bit of pity, I think, that the Government resist such provisions in Committee and then wait to bring in the amendments from the unelected House.

[Greg Clark]

We discussed these matters quite extensively in Committee. I think there was a shared view across the Committee that where the Government agree with some amendments proposed by Members, the convention is that they should reflect on them to ensure that they are legally robust. That is an established process, and throughout proceedings on the whole Bill, as I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) would agree, I have honoured every commitment I made from the Front Bench—for example, that we would consider any suggestions positively. That is why we have come back with these proposals. We have delivered on every commitment we made, so it is a little churlish of the hon. Lady to suggest that it was somehow delayed.

[Helen Jones]

I remind the Minister that there is such a thing as Report stage in the elected House, and that he is allowed to propose amendments there—he does not have to wait for the Bill to go to the unelected House. He could have accepted amendments at that stage. He says he has to make sure that things are “legally robust”, which Ministers often say, and I must be frank with him and point out that in my experience it is often used as a delaying tactic while Departments sort out what they are prepared to agree to and what they are not.

We welcome amendment 3, which makes it clear what fire and rescue authorities can charge for and prevents them from charging for community fire safety work. I am glad that the Minister listened to my noble Friend—not simply a turn of phrase, as she is my friend—Baroness Smith in the other place, as she has great experience in these matters.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady has pointed out that her noble Friend is indeed in the House of Lords. Unlike her, I am prepared to listen to the House of Lords. What the Baroness said would not have been heard in the House of Commons.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but while their lordships add much to our debate, there is something to be said for letting the elected House deal with these amendments properly. He has brought them back from the House of Lords and more than 400 amendments are going through in three and a half hours. That does not strengthen the position of the elected House.

The Minister also mentioned the core cities provisions. We welcome the powers to authorities proposed in the amendments, especially where they would improve local economic development and wealth creation and increase local accountability. We hope that the powers will be used to ensure better co-ordination on the ground. We note the duty on the Secretary of State to consider a proposal from local authorities for the transfer of public functions.

We think that there is much potential in those proposals, but they have to be seen in context. As I said, this is a Bill that gives more than 142 new powers to the Secretary of State. It is not simply a Bill about devolving powers to local authorities. The Secretary of State retains, albeit subject to certain safeguards, an extraordinary power to repeal, amend, revoke or disapply any duty on local authorities.

18:45

We do not intend to oppose the amendments, but we think they have to be seen in the context of the extraordinary Henry VIII powers that the Secretary of State still retains. I repeat that, however much the Minister tries to persuade us, he is not introducing an historic Bill that devolves lots of powers to local authorities. He is introducing a Bill that gives many more powers to the Secretary of State. Everything we debate this evening will have to be seen in that context.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 3 to 12.

After Clause 13

Timetables for changing English district councils’ electoral schemes

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 15 to 49 and 95 to 111.

Lords amendment 112, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 235, 248, 256, 261, 263 to 333, 404 to 413 and 441.

[Andrew Stunell]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister eloquently set out in respect of the last string of amendments, the Government believe that we need to decentralise power to local communities. I think that is now a shared all-party analysis, that the days of top-down control should be removed and that we should move to bottom-up control.

For the last 30 or 40 years—my right hon. Friend suggested perhaps for the last 100 years—there has been gathering frustration at the way in which local communities and local councils have had their decision making taken away from them and their power denuded, and, particularly for those in local government, how they have increasingly faced a situation in which everything they did was either compulsory or prohibited with no scope for local discretion or for taking account of local circumstances, local needs, local resources or, indeed, local opinion.

The communities that local authorities have served have had the role of angry bystanders, whereby things were simply done to them, imposed on them or dumped on them—not done by them, decided by them or, least of all, chosen and delivered by them. This Bill marks a huge cultural change not just for those local communities and local councils, but for those in Westminster, and perhaps even more for those in Whitehall. We need to change that culture: it is a long overdue change, and this Bill makes a start on achieving it.

I am encouraged by the fact that the criticism of Opposition Members is now that we are not going far or fast enough, when, in fact, over the last 13 years, they made the problem worse, not better. We look forward greatly to their co-operation in this place—as it was so willingly offered in the other place—so that we can improve the Bill, make it even more localist, and deliver for local communities and local councils.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, the amendments include a requirement for the deletion of clauses 42 to 58, the local referendum provisions. Does he regard that as an enhancement of local decision making, an embarrassing withdrawal from a rather bizarre and ill-thought-out proposal for local decision making, or simply a recognition of a cock-up on the Government’s part?

[Andrew Stunell]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman spoke and, I believe, voted against the inclusion of that provision in the Bill, I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that the Bill in its present form reflects his point of view more accurately than it did before.

The amendments take the power and local responsibility of local authorities further than the Bill as originally drafted. Although the original Bill set out to achieve that, we always made it clear that there was more to do, and that we were willing to listen when there were sensible arguments for going further. That is what underlies the amendments, all of which—as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister—secured support throughout the other place. During the debates both here and in the other place, a number of Members of both Houses made sensible suggestions about additional areas in which we could free up local government. Let me highlight two examples in which the Bill now goes even further than we originally proposed in freeing local authorities to manage their own business as they consider appropriate.

Good arguments were advanced in the other place in support of the view that the rules on area committees were too prescriptive. In response, the Government tabled Lords amendments 269, 271 and 272, which remove the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations in relation to such committees. When we were discussing the earlier group of amendments, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) maintained the argument—which does not bear close examination—that, in some mysterious way, inserting these proposals in the Bill, and improving them today, constituted an act of centralisation. Nothing could be further from the truth: our amendments relating to area committees demonstrate not just our intentions, but our delivery of increased localism for local authorities.

Good arguments were also advanced in the other place for the view that the rules on area committees were too tight. We therefore tabled Lords amendments 263, 267 and 270, which enable an executive of a local authority to delegate its functions to an area committee and to arrange for the discharge of those functions by an officer of the authority. That enables councils to establish whatever area committees they wish to establish, and to give them whatever executive functions they consider appropriate, without asking the Secretary of State for regulations or permission. Lords amendment 273 also removes the restrictions on the maximum size of area committees.

The Bill gives more powers to local authorities in respect of local elections. We have responded to representations about unnecessary restrictions on authorities wishing to change their scheme of elections, and the significant time constraints that were built into that scheme. Lords amendment 14 removes the rules stipulating when authorities may change their scheme of elections. It leaves them to make such decisions at a time that is right for them and their local communities without being dictated to by central government, and enables them to decide the date on which they will hold their first whole council elections.

Members of both Houses expressed the fear that the Government’s proposals would place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. We reflected carefully on those arguments, and discussed them at length with appropriate parties both inside and outside the House of Commons. One example relates to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about the proposed mayoral arrangements. As a result of comments made on Report—by the right hon. Gentleman, among others—and on Second Reading in the House of Lords, we agreed to streamline our proposals for elected mayors. Lords amendment 312 and a number of consequential amendments remove our initial proposals on shadow mayors as precursors to directly elected mayors, while Lords amendments 94 and 296 and a number of consequential amendments remove our proposals on mayoral management arrangements, under which the elected mayor would also have become the chief executive of his or her authority.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister a question about Lords amendment 112? As he will know, there are proposals—which are not universally accepted—for a directly elected mayor for the Liverpool city region. There is some support for them, and I support them in principle. Would the amended provisions make possible the creation of a directly elected city region mayor, but only on the basis that the powers of that person in regard to such important matters as transport, police and fire and rescue services are increased? Otherwise the amendment is pointless.

[Andrew Stunell]

The Bill does not encompass matters relating to city region mayors. That would require a separate provision. Let me, however, draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the amendments with which we will deal shortly relating to core cities, and to my right hon. Friend’s request for the core city regions to consider what powers they might wish to take. There are various options, but I should make it clear that there is no proposal in the Bill for a city region mayor.

Under the Local Government Act 2003, local authorities can already conduct non-binding referendums on matters relating to their services or expenditure. In addition, the Bill gives local people powerful new rights to vote on key issues such as governance changes—for example, mayoral elections, council tax increases and, of course, neighbourhood plans. A number of members of the House of Commons Committee feared that, given those new rights, the provisions on referendums did not add enough to justify the additional burden. Similar observations were made in the House of Lords Committee, and, after careful reflection and discussion, we determined that the right course was to accept on Lords Report amendments 96 to 112 removing the provisions relating to local referendums. That does not change the provisions on council tax referendums, which are the vehicle that switches the power to prevent excessive tax rises from the Government and the Secretary of State to the local communities and electors who will be paying those bills if they vote for them.

[Helen Jones]

What is the Minister’s response to the view of the Electoral Commission that if council tax referendums are introduced in 2012, the time scale will be too short to allow them to be prepared for properly? Will he listen to the commission’s representations?

[Andrew Stunell]

We will, of course, take careful account of all the advice we receive. The powers are to be changed only in respect of non-binding referendums. The Government are committed to giving people a greater say, but local people currently have many good opportunities to speak out and be heard.

19:00

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Minister and I were involved in the congestion charge referendum in Greater Manchester, and I think we both had concerns about the returning officer’s impartiality. Will the changes under discussion deal with situations such as that, where the returning officer was appointed by one side of the campaign and they operated from adjacent offices?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me that we sometimes make common cause on issues, and he is right to say there were concerns about that. The provision in question removes the proposal for non-binding referendums. Other proposals remain in the Bill, and the referendum to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, I believe, carried forward under the 2003 Act, which we are not amending.

I shall now turn to the amendment proposed by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—and, I believe, supported by the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). It seeks to add to the Bill a scheme of binding local referendums. The Government are committed to giving people a greater say in how their communities are run, but we do not believe that it is sensible to introduce binding referendums on any subject that might arise. Given the potential scope of the local issues that binding referendums might cover and the many complex impacts that such a regime could have on local service delivery and local public finances, it would be unwise for there to be a presumption that all local referendums should be binding. There could be occasions where there are two competing referendums with potentially conflicting aims. There could be occasions where the course of action requested has significant cost implications and would have an adverse impact on the delivery of other services or priorities. Ultimately, it is the role of councillors to take decisions by balancing the various views of citizens alongside the needs of the community, particularly where there is no consensus, and those councillors are ultimately responsible to local people for their decisions through the ballot box. I hope the signatories to the amendment in question will air their points of view, but I hope they will not force a Division.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making those comments. It is important that such referendums be non-binding, especially when we consider cities such as Leeds, part of which I represent, where there are many diverse communities. In times of economic trouble, it is easy for a blame culture to arise, and I can envisage situations in which some might try to use hate in a referendum campaign. If referendums were binding, that could cause a problem.

[Andrew Stunell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wise remark. One can envisage such binding referendums having a variety of unintended negative consequences.

The issue of standards was keenly debated in both Houses. Members and peers made it clear that they supported the abolition of the Standards Board regime and the removal of what was a top-down, bureaucratic system. However, concerns were raised about some aspects of our proposals to deal with local authority standards after the abolition of the Standards Board, and about whether they would ensure the high standards we all expect of local authorities. There was, however, much common ground and we were able to refine and develop our proposals as the Bill progressed through the House of Lords, and thereby get to a position which reassured all parties. All sides agreed that the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct was vital; the debate was about how best to achieve that.

We have introduced amendments 29 to 36 to address these concerns. They focus on the offence of pecuniary interests, and ensure that there are appropriate defences, such as “reasonable excuse”. In simplifying our proposals, we have ensured that councillors cannot use their position for financial advantage, but without the danger of criminalising a councillor for an honest oversight or omission.

There was a feeling that the provisions dealing with local authority standards after the abolition of the Standards Board needed to be set out in more detail. On Lords Third Reading, following meetings with peers of all parties and Cross-Benchers, the Government introduced amendments 15, 20 to 26, 7, 125, 332 and 333, strengthening the standards provisions in the Bill. Local authorities will now have to draw up a code of conduct in accordance with the Nolan principles of standards in public life, which I am sure I do not need to remind Members are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Central Government will not otherwise prescribe its content, other than to require councillors to register and disclose both their pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in an open manner. Local authorities will also have to put in place arrangements both to deal with complaints that the code has been breached and for coming to a decision about complaints. Again, we will not stipulate what these arrangements should be.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the clarity he is giving. In respect of this provision, district councils have felt that there might have been some suggestion that they would have to have a standards board looking after parish council complaints. I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, however.

[Andrew Stunell]

It is neither our intention nor what is provided for in the Bill.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

May I extend that question? We are going to have neighbourhood forums in respect of neighbourhood development plans, and there is also an issue to do with community budgets and the Government asking for community groups to come together to spend local money—that was recently proposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government for deprived areas such as mine. Will such matters be the responsibility of the new standards arrangements? They will not fall under parish council responsibility; rather, they will be dealt with by the district council or the Government. How will they fit in with the standards arrangements?

[Andrew Stunell]

I think the hon. Gentleman might be confusing different processes. The Standards Board regime applied to councillors at parish, district and county level. We are sweeping away the Standards Board and making sure that local authorities put in place sound and sensible provision to safeguard the integrity of themselves and the members who serve on them.

To return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), district councils do not have to monitor parish councils. They do need to have in place arrangements to deal with allegations of misconduct by a parish councillor, but how they do that is up to them. We will expect district councils and parishes to work together to make arrangements as simple as possible.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Government at last recognise they may have some responsibility for appropriate standards being maintained in local councils. Can the Minister give an assurance, however, that where there is a serious complaint against a chief executive or leader of a council—perhaps about bullying of a junior member of staff or another councillor—the complainant will receive as robust an investigation into those complaints as under the current regime that the Government seek to abolish?

[Andrew Stunell]

Absolutely. We are clearly setting out what councils have to do and have in place, and the safeguard that they are required to provide.

On the application of the standards regime in London, we took the opportunity on Lords Report to make amendments 16 to 19, 28, 37, 408, 411 and 413, which ensure that the Mayor of London and the Greater London assembly are given equal roles in and responsibility for promoting and maintaining high standards, rather than leaving that function to be discharged by the assembly alone. The amendments also allow the assembly and Mayor to delegate functions to a committee or member of staff.

With these amendments, taken as a whole, we have achieved a balanced approach to the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct, with local authorities determining for themselves how best to achieve that. They will be freed up from the top-down, bureaucratic yoke of a national regime, of a model code and of a quango-regulated regime that became a vehicle for petty, vindictive and often politically motivated complaints. Our approach, which balances localism with safeguards, is the right one to ensure accountability locally and consistently high standards right across the country.

This group also contains a number of more minor amendments, many of them technical in nature, but I will mention one because it will be of particular interest to Labour Members. Lords amendments 38 to 43 introduce measures intended to increase accountability on local authority decisions about pay and reward. During the Commons’ consideration, Labour Members welcomed these provisions, as far as they went, on senior pay and asked us to go further to see how the Bill could bring similar levels of accountability on the pay of the rest of an authority’s work force. We committed to do so, particularly in the light of Will Hutton’s review of fair pay in the public sector, which made several recommendations. Following the representations that we have received, and with that report as the background, we made amendments in the Lords which have the effect of expanding the scope of pay policy statements to include an authority’s policies towards its lowest-paid staff, as well as the relationship between the pay of its most senior staff and the rest of its work force. I hope that Labour Members will agree that these sensible changes broaden the scope of the measures to capture the spirit of their comments and the Hutton recommendations.

In summary, this group of amendments will radically reduce the prescription bearing down on local authorities, freeing them up to serve their local communities better. I wish to pay tribute to the way in which hon. Members from all parties have—in Committee and on Report in this House, and in the other place—engaged with this part of the legislation to deliver a much-improved Bill. I urge the House to agree to these Lords amendments, and I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendment (a) to a Division.

[Helen Jones]

We are dealing with a broad group of amendments relating to local authority governance. I wish to begin by speaking to amendment 15, which would ensure that it is compulsory rather than voluntary for local councils to adopt a code of conduct. The subsequent amendments make it clear that the code of conduct must be in line with the Nolan principles and would ensure that arrangements are in place to investigate complaints against a member, including the appointment of an independent person whose view must be sought before action is taken. As the Minister said, this group would also allow the Mayor of London to exercise functions relating to standards and provides for a register of interests.

We welcome the amendments. It was bizarre that, in Committee, Government Members opposed the requirement to have a code of conduct—I found that extremely confusing. We accept, in this House, that we should be subject to clear standards of behaviour, but the Government were proposing that other elected representatives—people who deliver important services to their communities and take decisions that affect people’s daily lives—should not face a similar requirement; a council might have a code or it might not. Such a situation is not acceptable. It fails to offer sufficient protection to the public and it implies that the standards regime is optional.

19:15

In Committee, we heard all sorts of convoluted justifications for such an approach. The Minister said that the old system was

“an almost constant source of irritation to almost every local authority.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 3 February 2011; c. 287.]

He is right about that—in my experience, it was usually the Lib Dems doing the irritating, because they were continually putting in complaints. He argued that authorities should have the freedom not to have a code of conduct, but that denigrates local government. He got very close to saying that local government was not important enough to be required to have a code of conduct. Nobody in Committee was standing up for the old system, but that did not mean that it was right not to have a code of conduct at all. Labour Members think it is a vital part of our democracy and deserves to be treated as such.

The Minister argued that there was no need for compulsion because everyone would have a code of conduct anyway, but that failed to answer the question of what would happen if they did not. We are pleased to see the amendments and to see that clause 18 sets out clearly that a register of interests must be maintained in an authority and how pecuniary interests must be disclosed.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend could not be more accurate, in that most of the vexatious claims under the previous legislation came from Lib Dem councillors who had lost the argument. Is she satisfied that these proposals contain a sufficient filter or enough common-sense criteria to reduce the number of vexatious claims from Lib Dem councillors or to stop such claims?

[Helen Jones]

The only people who can stop vexatious claims by Lib Dem councillors are the Lib Dems, but I am sure that as they dwindle away in local government so, too, will the number of claims from them.

These amendments are, no doubt, an improvement on the original Bill, but I have some reservations about how the system will work in practice. In particular, I wonder about the role of the “independent person” specified. He or she must have their views sought by the local authority before it makes any decision on an allegation. However, although their view must be taken into account, that person is not the decision maker and does not have the power to investigate. I accept that we do not want to set up a system that is too convoluted, but I foresee a real possibility of conflict. In most local authorities—in good local authorities—that person clearly will be involved, but there is no requirement for that to happen. In addition, that independent person may be consulted by those who are the subject of an allegation. That really raises the question of what the role is: is the independent person the judge, the defence counsel or merely a therapist for all those involved? It is very unclear and we will have to consider again how the arrangement would work in practice—it may be that more work than we intend will result for lawyers.

Lastly, I am concerned that, although we now have something about pecuniary interests in the Bill, there is little about non-pecuniary interests, other than the fact that the code of conduct must secure their disclosure. We may well discover that it is necessary to have a clear definition of “non-pecuniary interests”, as we have in this House, for the sake of giving clarity to local councils and ensuring that minimum standards apply everywhere.

Let me address amendments 38 to 46 and 48, which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) rather skated over. The Government did not want to accept this set of amendments either, but they have now been forced to do so. Originally, the Government intended to require local councils to publish only information about the pay of senior staff. The reason for that was very simple: they wanted to propagate the myth that councils would not have to make cuts if only they cut top salaries. Let us be very clear that that is a myth. Liverpool council has cut £500,000 from executive pay, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the £100 million-worth of cuts that it faces.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does the hon. Lady think that local authority money is better spent on libraries or on an international relations department?

[Helen Jones]

I think that, as Ministers keep saying from the Front Bench, it is for local authorities to make decisions about their priorities—the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Let me be clear that I believe that people have a right to know how their money is spent. My personal view is that pay at the top of local authorities has risen to an unsustainable level, but it has been following pay in the private sector. We ought to make it clear that more than 90% of those who earn more than £150,000 are in the private sector—not the public sector. It is very interesting that the Government do not say anything about that. Neither do they want to say very much about low pay in the public sector, because that does not fit the myths that they create.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I am shocked at how little attention the hon. Lady has paid to our debates up to now. Does she not recognise that when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) raised this issue, we said at a very early stage that we were more than prepared to take that away and consider it? The tone of her contribution is markedly different from the very constructive manner of her colleagues in Committee. We kept our promise: we have reflected and delivered.

[Helen Jones]

If the Government believed that this issue was so important, they could have put it in the Bill to start with, but they did not because their focus was all on pay at the top of local authorities and not on the low pay that is endemic at the bottom.

[Greg Clark]

Once again the hon. Lady is being rather churlish. The Hutton committee had not reported by that time. We made a commitment that we would consider the recommendations in good faith and we have done that, as is reflected in the Bill. It would be nice if she could be a bit more generous in her remarks.

[Helen Jones]

If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the reason was that the Hutton committee had not reported, one would have to ask why the Government introduced specifications in the Bill about senior pay. They did so because they want consistently to promote the myth that councils would not have to make front-line cuts if only they would cut top pay.

We are pleased that councils will now have to set out details of who they regard as their lower-paid staff and their approach to the pay of those employees. They will also have to include a statement about their policy on pay dispersions—what used to be called differentials when I was negotiating. This is a real and growing issue in this country and people are extremely concerned about it. The amendments represent a very modest step, but at least they will make information available to the public and ensure that councils consider the issue. The publication of details about pay will expose the inequalities that prevail and encourage people to think about how many of the services they rely on are delivered by people on low pay. There are people out there who provide care for the elderly, clean our streets and empty our bins—people whom we take for granted but without whom our towns and cities would quickly cease to function—and they are often very low paid.

I regret that the Government have not seen fit to include the requirement for local government contractors to provide pay transparency if the value of their contract is in excess of £250,000. We argued in Committee for that to be included, because we believe that it is a matter of basic justice. We believe that those who are paid from public money should not be on poverty pay and that the firms that provide public services should demonstrate how they are spending our money. Contracts that are outsourced might seem like better value, but if they depend on low pay that is then topped up by benefits, not only are they an affront to the people who work in those services but they might cost more public money in the long run. The increase in the outsourcing of services has made this step even more important, because we want good companies to compete on quality and efficiency, not by undercutting pay levels and terms of service. The amendments will at least bring more transparency into the system, but it is a pity that the Government could not have extended the duty a little further.

Let me address the amendments that remove the details regarding local referendums, which really illustrate what a mess the Government have got themselves into with the Bill. A welter of amendments dealt with this issue in the Lords, although it was dealt with extensively in the Bill Committee both in the evidence it received and during its debates. The late Sir Simon Milton, for example, pointed out that a referendum in London could cost £5 million if held on the same day as local elections, but could cost £11 million if held on a different day. However, it took the Government some time to realise what a huge drain on a local authority’s budget that could be. My hon. Friends also raised in Committee the huge costs that would be involved for local authorities, such as that for checking petitions for a referendum and for running the referendums. There was a real fear that the number of petitions and referendums would simply spiral over time. Even the leader of Shropshire council, who is a Conservative, warned that the costs could be “outrageous”, but it took a long time for the Government to change course.

Underlying those provisions was the Government’s failure to trust elected councillors to decide how to engage with their electorate. We still hear a lot from Government Front Benchers about devolving powers to local authorities, but it took them some time to realise that imposing this system on local authorities would have been unwise to say the least. Local authorities might want to use petitions, referendums or public meetings—whatever they wish—and, like all of us in elected office, if they do not get it right they pay the penalty at the ballot box. That is as democracy should be.

The Under-Secretary was adamant in Committee and would not budge an inch. I felt quite sorry for him, because he suffered the fate of many junior Ministers who are sent like officers on the Somme to defend an indefensible position until those above them finally decide that they ought to give way. Indeed, I am surprised that he is still here, because I understand that at the weekend the Lib Dem leader in Broxtowe called for him to resign following his performance. In Committee, the Under-Secretary would not accept the dangers of what he was proposing. However, there were risks that highly vocal pressure groups that did not necessarily represent the wider community—certainly not the whole authority area—could use the measures, so there was potential for whipping up feeling against necessary, but sometimes unpopular, provision.

I recall examples that I have dealt with regarding housing for people with mental health problems in the community. My experience has been that the idea is usually unpopular because of the misconceptions about mental health that many people hold, but that if one talks to neighbours and tries to deal with their fears, that usually works. Once people are settled in their homes, overwhelmingly the community around them is very supportive and helpful. One could not do that sort of work in the face of a polarising referendum, which some people might whip up for their particular ends. No one is saying that a referendum is always a bad idea, but there are many ways of engaging with voters and that is only one of them.

19:30

If amendment (a) to Lords amendment 112 is put to the vote, we will oppose it for the reasons that have already been stated. We do not believe that imposing binding referendums on local councils is the way forward, because they can be misused, they can have an impact on services elsewhere and, as was said earlier, they may be used by people promoting racial hatred or for other purposes that we would consider inappropriate. In the end, the local council must take a decision and stand by it.

We welcome the amendments that remove the mayoral management arrangements from schedule 2 and delete the power of the Secretary of State to order that a specified authority must move to an elected mayor and cabinet system because, again, the original clauses clearly gave the lie to the idea that the Bill was about empowering local communities. On the contrary, it gave yet more power to the Secretary of State. The proposal to order a move to an elected mayor and cabinet was one of the most controversial in the Bill, together with the power to impose shadow mayors. I note that the Government are retaining the power to order an authority to hold a referendum on the subject because clearly they do not trust local councils, but at least we have seen some progress.

It is astonishing how many U-turns Ministers have done on this issue. In 2007, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) told a Committee of the House:

“I would prefer that the Government did not prescribe the governance system for councils at all.”––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2007; c. 251.]

I expect that, as the former leader of a local authority, he believes that, so I do not know what happened in the meantime, unless he was sat on by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is now also an Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, told the same Committee:

“governance should be entirely a matter for local councils”—[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 20 February 2007; c. 269.]

I agree, but he is a Lib Dem, and we have all seen “Focus” leaflets which argue different things in different areas.

The real point about these proposals is that they were entirely undemocratic—a fact that was recognised clearly in the other place. They would not have given the decision to local people and would have given whoever was made the shadow mayor a huge electoral advantage in any poll that followed. We believe that that was an entirely unacceptable way of going about things. To add to the confusion, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, have both said on different occasions that a mayor and cabinet system would only follow a referendum of local people. That is typical of the mischief and muddle that have characterised the Bill. So bad were the Government’s original proposals that even Tory councillors were speaking out against them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) says from a sedentary position, “You don’t want to listen to them.” I hope his own councillors hear what he says.

The most outrageous suggestion from the Government was the proposal to allow an elected mayor also to be the chief executive of a local authority. Goodness knows what put that into their heads. It reflects a degree of confusion between political leadership and administration which is extremely worrying. I well recall in years past, when Labour took control of Lancashire county council, my former hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Joan Humble, going to the social services offices and saying, “We are going to implement this manifesto. You are going to tell me how to do it, and I will listen to your advice on how to do it, but make no mistake, we’re going to implement it.” That is the difference between political leadership and administration. One listens to officers about the best way to do things, but one has a political direction.

The problem with what the Government were proposing was the muddling of those two, which has huge potential for undermining standards in the governance of local authorities because it removes the system of checks and balances that help local authorities to run properly. Removing the proposal and the introduction of a mandatory requirement to have a code of conduct is a step forward, as are some of the other amendments in the group. I only wish that the Government had listened earlier in Committee to the points that were made by my hon. Friends.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I shall be brief, as I have made this point many times to Ministers.

The coalition agreement states:

“We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.”

Despite being wildly enthusiastic about the introduction of referendums, I was critical of this component of the Bill because I did not think it went nearly far enough. This aspect of the Bill recognised that people want more say and more control over the decisions that affect their lives, but because the referendums that we were proposing were to be non-binding, I think the Government would have failed to deliver. I tried on many occasions to persuade the Minister to convert the idea so that the referendums would be binding, but I failed.

I was told to take comfort from the fact that this was a start, and that the referendums did not need to be binding because only a mad local authority would ever go against the wishes of its electorate. Well, there are many mad local authorities, as everyone here knows. [Interruption.] I will name one or two. Earlier this year King’s Lynn and West Norfolk threatened to build a large incinerator, which triggered an almighty backlash from the local population. In the ensuing referendum the turnout was 61%, which would make most constituencies envious in the run-up to a general election. That is a serious figure—61% of the 80,000 people polled —and 92% of those voted against the incinerator. That was an overwhelming result, and hon. Members can probably guess the outcome: the result was ignored by the local authority.

[Helen Jones]

Did the question include where the incinerator should go?

[Zac Goldsmith]

To be honest, I do not know what options were offered, but a large percentage of the population turned out to vote and the vast majority of those made their opinion known and were ignored. Whether we agree with that decision is academic. The fact is that people had their say and were ignored.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

To reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes about councils listening, when the then governing coalition of Conservatives and Liberals on Leeds city council was discussing an incinerator, which I opposed, the Labour councillors made great play of the fact that the incinerator was going to be built. They won power on the council in 2010, and they are now building the incinerator. We have not heard a peep from the councillors who opposed it before.

[Zac Goldsmith]

We could go on. I shall take the opportunity to give one more example of a mad council ignoring the wishes of local people. That was in my own local authority in Richmond, where a couple of years ago—[Interruption.] It happens even in places such as Richmond, where I called a referendum on a proposal to bring in a supermarket, which local people felt would seriously damage the independent shops in one of the much-loved streets in Barnes. We had a bigger turnout in that referendum than in any general election, but we had a Mugabe-esque result: nearly 90% of people rejected Sainsbury’s, yet the local authority did absolutely nothing to prevent the takeover of the high street by Sainsbury’s. Again, whether we agree with the decision or not, democracy ought to play a role in such decisions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case in favour of referendums. He referred to overwhelming turnouts in favour of a proposition. However, the proposal before us contains no safeguard for such a referendum, and there could be a binding referendum on a very small turnout. How would he deal with that problem?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a safeguard, although it may not be enough. The Government’s proposal was that 5% of the population could trigger a referendum, which I always felt was too low and would allow it to become a cranks’ charter, because it does not take much to get 5% of people to call for something, and we could end up debating some mad ideas. My amendment would raise the minimum number of signatures required to trigger a referendum to 20%, but I would be happy with 30%, because it should be difficult. A referendum should act as a veto in the hands of the people, but it should not be an easy mechanism to deploy.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We have just heard about one potential weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, and I would like to raise another. He has made great play of the fact that the result of the referendum would be binding—it is repeated several times in the wording of the amendment—but it then states that that would be

“subject to exceptions set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

Could he assist the House by giving three examples of the kind of exceptions that he has in mind?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman one exception that covers many more than three: matters that are not in the control of the local authority. If the decision can be made without reference to national Government, the local authority would be bound by the results of a referendum. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman described the weakness that I highlighted earlier as a “potential” weakness, because I hope that I answered the question adequately.

[Hilary Benn]

The example that the hon. Gentleman gives seems to be covered already by subsection (2) of his amendment, which says that a referendum can take place only if relates to one of the four examples given in paragraphs (a) to (d). It seems to me that his answer falls at an earlier hurdle—his own amendment. I ask him again whether he can give three examples of situations in which he thinks the Secretary of State should say that the result of a referendum is not binding.

[Zac Goldsmith]

We are getting into a technical exchange—[Interruption.] It is very technical, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, as Government Members have pointed out from a sedentary position. The previous Government’s proposals for the non-binding aspect of the referendum were clearly inadequate, but I concede that, as the Minister said at the time, they represent a start. It was a start until the entire chapter was dropped as it was being negotiated in the other place. That might have been a mistake, in which case I am happy to reintroduce the concept in the amendment, but it takes the previous Government’s idea one step further. The amendment would give people power to instigate a local referendum, which is a commitment that all Government Members made in the run-up to the last election. We all committed to ensuring that people could have their say in local referendums, and in my view it was an important part of the manifesto. Crucially, it is binding. Crucially, we have raised the threshold to 20%, which I hope would prevent the kind of abuses that people are worried about.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend once again makes a powerful case for referendums, but the point is that although the trigger for instigating a referendum would be 20% of the electorate, there would be no safeguard when it came to the voting. The turnout could be as low as 5% or 10%, but the result would still bind a local authority.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will not argue on that point, because I do not necessarily disagree with him. The purpose of the amendments is to introduce the concept of binding local referendums. If it was decided as a result of a proper debate in the House that the minimum proportion of signatures needed to be 30%, I would not argue with that. At one point the Bill specified that it would be 15%, and after much discussion the Members in whose names the amendment stands decided to raise the figure to 20%. In my view, that is not an issue to get hung up about. Similarly, I certainly do not oppose the concept of a minimum turnout, and would have been willing to include that in an amendment, following proper discussion. It is the principle that is important. It was an error for the Government to remove even a half-hearted attempt at handing power back to local people, and it is a mistake that I think people will remember.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, because clearly it does not enjoy overwhelming support, and Front Benchers on both sides of the House have said that they will whip against it. If I pressed it to a Division, I would not expect to achieve anything other than wasting people’s time. However, I hope that the Government will think again and recognise that they have an opportunity to show that when they talk about localism they actually mean it, and that they trust people to make decisions that affect their own lives. I hope that they will recognise, as the Minister has done many times, that no one is better placed to decide the nature, shape, form and future of an area than the people who live in it. I urge the Government to think again.

19:45

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I want to return briefly to the local code of conduct and how it will work. We all know that the Standards Board is going—and I, for one, am not sorry to see it go, but I would like to see something put in its place. We must have some form of security. I think that the Minister failed to answer my question, so I will put it again and give him the opportunity to intervene if he wants to. This legislation establishes neighbourhood forum groups that will shape and influence planning policy. Residents will be drawn almost at random, or it will be the usual people who get involved in community activities who will come forward. Surely they must be accountable in some way, according to some form of standards. They cannot simply operate in a vacuum, in which things can simply happen and then there is no way to hold them accountable for their decisions.

Last week the Department for Communities and Local Government announced the Community First programme, offering £30 million of grants to 597 of the most deprived wards. Here the Government are asking for neighbourhood committees to be set up. In my constituency, Peel ward, one of the most deprived in the country, is to receive £17,000 in each of the next two years as part of the Community First programme. The residents were told last week that they will have to set up a committee to spend what is essentially public money, yet there is no accountability. The Minister is totally unclear about how local authorities will deal not only with elected members in local authorities, but with unelected members who will be involved in some of the decision making that will help to shape public policy.

[Andrew Stunell]

I wanted to hear the rest of the hon. Gentleman’s point in case I was missing something fundamental, but I was not. I hope that I can return to the point later. I can assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that changes the requirement for any body that receives public money to spend it in a lawful way, and with integrity. If it is a charity or community group, the Charity Commission and other regulatory bodies will kick in. He is erecting a substantial mountain out of a very small molehill.

[Graham Jones]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I think that his answer is more smoke and mirrors. I am asking where the judicial framework is, and his answer is that there is none, but there is a legal framework, within which we all operate. If that is the case, why do we have standards in public life? It is because that is a judicial element that governs and reflects the service that we all give—but we encounter problems when people make decisions that are not in the best public interest, but in their own personal or prejudicial interests.

[Robert Neill]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that every voluntary organisation that receives public funding should be subject to a standards regime? Surely he would accept that although neighbourhood forums, for example, propose the neighbourhood plan, there are other safeguards, in terms of the referendum, consistency with the local authority’s strategic plan and national policy, and a test of soundness, to deal with such matters. A standards regime would be grossly disproportionate in such cases.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify that. Many of the organisations to which the Government give money have robust frameworks, but we are talking about a group of individuals who might, in the example of Peel ward, live on an ordinary street near me. They are not subject to the controls, charters, rules or regulations of any organisation. They are outside that, and not part of any judicial framework, so I do not think that he is right. I accept that there is a grey area between who we give money to and how far we should hold them to account in public life. None the less, when someone who lives two streets away from me and is not involved in any organisation can get involved in spending £17,000, might misspend it and cannot be held to account, there is definitely a void. I take the Minister’s point, but I am raising a concern that he has failed to answer.

[Robert Neill]

Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the local authority remains the accountable body, and the normal district audit and other regimes apply to it. I appreciate the sincerity of his point, but I earnestly urge him to think again, because he is missing the point, which is not as grave as he might think.

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate that, but, having a lot of experience in local government, I think that the Minister is missing the point: there is no judicial framework, so somebody can go out and do something, and if there is a complaint by another member of the public about those actions there is nowhere for it to go, so the complaints that we get now could continue. If that is going to happen in planning policy, we will have some problems, so we need a substantive framework and an opportunity for people to bring into public debate the decisions that the individuals on those bodies make.

Further to that point, I am concerned that there is no robust framework for standards, and again I bring local government experience to that point. A lot of vexatious complaints are politically motivated—[Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear the cheers from Government Members; I do not know where such complaints are coming from, but they certainly did not come from the Labour side in my local authority. Regardless of that, those who have worked in local authorities know that many complaints are politically motivated, and they need to be removed. That is a serious and substantive point, and simply having a non-elected chair but an elected committee is not acceptable. When we look around local government, we find that even that has failed. There needs to be an unelected, unaccountable—sorry, accountable—[Interruption.] I hope the record is corrected. There needs to be an accountable but non-elected body, because that, more than anything, will stop a lot of vexatious complaints. The Government would be doing themselves a favour if they introduced such a framework into local government.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I shall comment on a couple of amendments, but, starting with amendment 15 and following the remarks of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on the Standards Board, I was a councillor for six years, from 2004 to 2010, and once during that time I was taken to the Standards Board but found not really to have done anything wrong. The local authority dealt with the matter internally, but the person who brought it did not like the decision and tried to take it to appeal, and that is the point: it was about a planning issue.

Councillors stood in the ward I represented in Leeds on manifestos saying that they would protect certain characteristics of villages, and, when a planning application was made that totally undermined that, they wrote a letter of objection. The person who made the planning application took them to the Standards Board, saying that they were making a prejudicial complaint. That person used the board as a bullying tactic against councillors, and it happened time and again.

Nobody in this Chamber would say that people should not expect anything except the highest standards from those in public office. Everybody across the Chamber agrees with that, but the provisions brought in by the Standards Board were taken up by members of the public. Those people wanted to force the issue with a councillor, and they did not just make their life a misery; they cost them, personally and financially, a fortune.

[Graham Jones]

I was a victim of a vexatious complaint, on a very minor technicality, to the Standards Board. It was politically motivated, and, although I will not say which party chased it, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such things are very annoying.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes my point. The complaint against him was politically motivated, whereas the one against me was made by somebody who was trying to get a particular decision on a planning issue and, effectively, trying to bully councillors not to get involved. There were several such cases, and whether someone has such politically motivated Standards Board cases, or whether the case comes from a slightly different angle, depends on which part of an authority they represent and the biggest issues there.

I do not want to get into which party takes the most people to the Standards Board, but I feel that the Labour party has been slightly unfair on our coalition colleagues. In the city of Leeds, Labour councillors formed a queue around the block to take others to the Standards Board. Indeed, one Labour councillor in Leeds, whom I am to going to name in the Chamber, took many people to the board over things that he considered to be a problem when Labour was in opposition, but now his party is in power and he is still not getting the information he wants, he is still pursuing the complaints. Even his own leadership say that they cannot keep control of him.

Do not get me wrong: the mindset behind establishing the Standards Board was correct. Credit should go to the previous Government for setting it up to demand the highest standards, but in reality and in practice that is not how it has worked, and it has become a useless tool that stops people writing in a manifesto what policies they would like to pursue. The board has been twisted and manipulated.

The former Mayor of London was taken to the Standards Board over a comment he made, and luckily he received the ruling that it had been made in his personal and private life, but what ruling was given to us councillors? It stated, “If someone comes up to you in the pub, you must say, ‘I am sorry, I am not a councillor.’” Come on, let us get real. Either we engage with our public, talk to people and understand things, or we become part of a robotic system in which the public are further distanced from us.

I guess that the vast majority of Members engage locally with their constituents, going down the pub, talking to people in the high street, getting information from what people feel is happening on the street and talking to them about it. Local councillors cannot do that any more, because unless they declare at the outset, “I am not discussing this with you, come to my surgery at this time,” they run a risk, and that represents a big disconnect from and disservice to the public. That was an unintended consequence of the Livingstone case, but whether we agree with his comments or not, that is not the issue, because they occurred in his private life, and the case should never have gone to the Standards Board.

We do have protection of the public: it is called the ballot box. That was always my argument as a councillor when it was said that someone was going to the Standards Board. There is a ballot box, whereby people can be voted in or out, and if someone were seen to be wholly corrupt it would not matter whether they were in the safest seat in the country, they would be voted out.

[Graham Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I will give way. I think I know what is coming.

[Graham Jones]

I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not want to be controversial, but let us take the Community First programme in my constituency’s Peel ward, where residents are going to spend public money, or the neighbourhood forums. They are not elected. Where is the ballot box for those people?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

But there is something called the Serious Fraud Office—the fraud squad—and there is a law of the land, so we do not need to pursue such things through the Standards Board. If people misappropriate public funds, they can be reported to the police and there can be an investigation. Sometimes we double up on legislation to try to say to the public, “Look what we’re doing,” but in reality they have ended up with less influence and power, because things have become bound up in an operation that has not helped at all.

[Graham Jones]

If my community group decides that it is going to spend money on a project for which it has ownership, or on a project down the road for which there is no ownership within the Community First programme, and it then decides to skew the funding to what suits its needs, not somebody else’s, how does that fit in? That is not illegal, that is not fraud, but it is against accepted standards in public life.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene again on me. Who is awarding the grants to those people to spend that money?

[Graham Jones]

The Government are.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, but the money comes from the council, and that is the point: it comes from the local authority to start with.

[Graham Jones]

It actually comes directly from the Department for Communities and Local Government.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Through local communities and local government, projects are being identified—[Interruption.] I give way to the Minister.

[Andrew Stunell]

I wonder whether I may help my hon. Friend by reminding him that any body or organisation that spends public money is subject to the equalities duty, introduced under equalities legislation introduced by this Government earlier this year.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for assisting me with that line of debate. There are protections in place: there is the law of the land, there is legislation and, when it comes to democratically elected people, there is the ballot box. I do not think it will do any harm to local government to remove the Standards Board and consider other areas, because it has wasted hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds of taxpayers’ money on vexatious, vindictive claims. Beyond that, the board has slowed the process of local government, as well as the service and, indeed, the communications we, as elected Members, would want to have with our public. We need to address that.

20:00

I shall also speak to amendment 112 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Again, I want to focus on the facts. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments and for the opportunity to intervene on the Minister earlier. If we have a binding referendum, we do not have control over what someone may be made to do. We can bring in threshold limits, but there is something called the internet, which makes it easy for people to move forward with ideas and get to thresholds. A relatively low number of people could then go and vote, and we would be faced with some very nasty legislation.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I have a brief question. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, would my hon. Friend support it if it included turn-out thresholds, not just trigger-mechanism thresholds?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I would not support the amendment for the reasons my hon. Friend just mentioned, because if someone wants to have a referendum that is binding on any subject, they leave themselves open to several problems. My hon. Friend’s amendment contains provisions that he feels would deal with that. However, in this place, we must be very careful about the legislation we introduce and the language we use. We may try to foresee the instances that may occur and try to stop some unsavoury referendums taking place, but once the legislation saying that it is binding is in place, someone somewhere will find a way around it.

We live in heightened times of tension. That is inevitable in an economic downturn. We go through periods when there is a blame culture and it is easy to pick on the weakest person.

If the House will indulge me, I would like to refer to “The Simpsons”. I am sure I am not alone when I say that I am huge fan of “The Simpsons”. Some of the episodes can be particularly cutting. I remember one episode when some of the characters woke up to find a bear in the front garden and decided that they wanted to introduce a bear tax to keep the bears out. The mayor had a meeting and said, “I want to bring in a bear tax.” Everybody said, “We’re not paying any more tax”, to which the mayor said, “All right. Well, I blame the immigrants.” Everybody cheered and the mayor said, “We’ll have a referendum on it.” As the episode goes on, they have a referendum to kick out the immigrants because they are unhappy about having to pay more tax and there was not enough tax to sort out the bears. Later, the episode highlights the fact that people in their communities, their friends and so on have an immigrant past and are fully integrated. There is a road to Damascus moment for Homer who goes around saying, “This is a terrible referendum. We can’t vote on this.” The result comes in, and there is a 96% vote to get rid of all the immigrants because nobody listens.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I apologise for intervening again, but my hon. Friend’s argument is exactly an argument in favour of democracy and referendums. If an unattractive proposition is made, people’s gut reaction may be to take the least attractive option. However, after debate and discussion—just as Homer Simpson proved to my hon. Friend in his youth—the right decision is normally reached. There are examples of that happening. In Switzerland, there was recently a vote on a motion that would have made migration to that country almost impossible. All the pundits and pollsters said the proposal would be overwhelmingly accepted; in fact, it was rejected by two to one as a result of the type of discussions prompted by the referendum. I say to my hon. Friend: please do not fear democracy in the way so many of our colleagues here do.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It is not democracy I fear; it is people who may not be fully informed going to the ballot box. Let us not forget that the Third Reich was elected.

In conclusion, there is a place for referendums, and the balance in the Bill is about right. However, referendums should not be binding, which could open things up. It is perhaps sometimes hon. Members’ responsibility not to adopt the position we would take ourselves, but to consider what is best overall to protect the people from those who would seek to abuse and twist a system, as, indeed, happened with the Standards Board.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow that interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). I mean that; his contribution was very interesting.

I welcome the contributions made by noble Members in the other place, which have been exemplary. There has been working together, cross-party work and working among the Cross Benchers. Ministers in the other place have carried forward issues raised in Committee in this place. Therefore, I am not sure why there is so much criticism of the amendments. During consideration of the Bill, there has been co-operation with the Local Government Association. This is perhaps more relevant to the next string of amendments, but I would like to put on the record the fact that I have recently become vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome the Government amendments because, for the most part, they will extend local decision making and they are all steps in the right direction. Restrictions on area committees will be removed and councils will be able to choose what sort of structure they operate under and when they change structure. I was a councillor when cabinet structures were imposed by a Labour Government. There is also the timing of when a vote on all-out local elections may be held, if that is the choice of the local authority. I welcome the abolition of the concept of shadow mayors, because that was certainly not the best example of local decision making.

We have said much tonight about the standards reforms. They are possibly the most important matter to discuss on this string of amendments. It seems that all hon. Members recognise that reform was necessary. Sadly, I think it would be true to say that hon. Members of all political parties have probably engaged in vexatious complaints, so it should not be only my party that is the thrust of such comments. We need to recognise that, unfortunately, the set-up—the nature of the beast—meant that vexatious complaints would occur.

When the Bill was introduced, it was a reaction to a great need for reform and it moved the pendulum. As often happens, it probably moved it too far. The other place has pulled that pendulum back and has achieved a very interesting balance. There has certainly been much discussion on the matter. At the back of my mind, I feel that we should be prepared to review how things are working. Obviously, we do not have such a provision before us today, but it would be useful to know how the new system is working out in, for example, two years’ time. It might be necessary to revisit the system. None of us has a crystal ball and can see how well the new system might work, but this is definitely the right type of reform. It is important to get a balance and, as much as possible, make the measure local. Nevertheless, there need to be important protections.

I therefore heartily welcome all the Government amendments in this string. I am afraid that I will not support the amendment of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). His passion for increasing local democracy is very important, but there are issues with local referendums, not least the fact that they could lead to conflicts and abuse. The amendment clearly has a number of technical deficiencies and therefore could not be considered anyway.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I shall address my remarks to the amendments relating to referendums—Lords amendment 112 and the excellent counter-amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—and to the Minister’s remarks about council tax referendums.

It occurs to me to wonder how our counterparts in the United States Congress or the German Bundestag might look at our debate. It is about the Localism Bill, yet we seek to prescribe almost every last detail of how and when a locality might consult its people on an issue—whether that consultation should be binding or non-binding, how far it extends, and what exactly should be the trigger of signatures or the turn-out required. An alternative way of doing this, even if there were certain minimums, would be to allow localities themselves to experiment on what works best for them and to consult their residents as they wish.

I agree with the Government that the Bill introduces an improvement—at least a small one—in relation to a council tax referendum, in that when a local council comes up with a proposal for a level of council tax, it is somewhat better that central Government might require a referendum on that level rather than merely disagreeing with it and putting in place one that central Government happen to prefer. The local authority is the single body that is setting the council tax, then central Government come in with a successiveness tax test, and then there has to be a referendum.

I am concerned about how the Bill interacts with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The way in which the police precept is set has some very special aspects relative to other local government precepts. The first of these is that the police precept is a pretty small proportion of the overall council tax, so setting a percentage increase above which it is required to have a local referendum acts as a far greater disincentive to placing a precept above that than it does for local government, because the proportionate cost of having a referendum for the police precept is far higher—perhaps up to 2% of the police budget. That makes it extraordinarily difficult for a police body to attempt to go beyond what central Government have set as that trigger.

Overall, I am concerned that setting these referendum requirements undermines the incentive to vote for local politicians who want to stand on a lower-tax basis. If central Government are in any case providing an automatic safeguard so that even if there is an enormously left-wing council that wants to push up the council tax by a huge amount, that reduces the incentive to vote for politicians who believe in lower taxes.

[Graham Jones]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that my left-wing Labour council is setting a 0% council tax level for the forthcoming year.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Gentleman’s Labour council, like every other council in the country, has set a 0% council tax level because this Government, who believe in localism, have come in with an offer they cannot refuse.

I was a councillor for four years, and I am afraid that such measures do not just reduce the incentive to vote for parties of the centre right: it sometimes leads to good Conservatives taking offsetting measures to give themselves greater scope for freedom from central Government. My own council of Medway had virtually the lowest unitary tax in the country outside the Scilly Isles, yet when we attempted to put in a tax increase that was very slightly above the standard percentage cap that was set, we were not designated but put under the process whereby action would be taken against us the following year if we did not pull our socks up. In fact, our increase was far lower, in absolute terms, than increases of similarly sized councils elsewhere.

The problem is the fear of being capped—of not knowing what the level will be next year—and possibly even the fear of being forced to have very expensive referendums with very embarrassing results for the local politicians, particularly if they do not succeed, and for which their locality has to pay for in any event. That may lead some councils, even good Conservative ones, to put up council tax by more than they otherwise would in a particular year so that they have a higher base and there is less concern that they might get capped in a future year in needing to put through a substantive increase.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend think it is fair that the Government can impose a cap and say, “That’s it—you’re not raising it”, as in his fine example from Medway? Would it not be better to take that to the people and say, “Do you want to have this rise in council tax which we believe is above a cap?”, when he could argue exactly the case he has argued for Medway?

20:15

[Mark Reckless]

As I said, I believe that in this respect the Bill is a marginal improvement on what we had before. Let us consider the idea that the federal Governments in the US or Germany would look at each state, determine what the level is—indeed, the same level for all states—and say, “If you want to raise your property tax by more than that, you have to have this referendum, and this is the exact way in which we specify that it has to be run.” By comparison, we seem to have an extraordinarily centralised state, and I am disappointed that the tiny steps in the Bill have only a very little impact on that.

In the policing universe, the Bill is not just a little bit of progress but a step back. The significant difference is that there is not a single body making the decision, as with a local council within the referendum protection; we are setting up a special local body, a police and crime panel, that will have scrutiny, oversight and an overview of the directly elected commissioner. We said in the coalition agreement that the elected police and crime commissioner

“will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives.”

We were then told—I questioned the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about this earlier—that the panel

“will have a power to trigger a referendum on the policing precept recommended by the Commissioner.”

The Minister said that he disagreed with the premise of my question, which was in fact the premise in the White Paper that the Home Office published in July last year, “Policing in the 21st century”, which said that the police and crime panel will have this power. However, the Bill, which provides for these referendums, has no provision to allow the police and crime panel to trigger such a referendum, and the powers appear to have been taken by the Secretary of State, despite the coalition agreement and what was promised in the White Paper last year.

When the Minister spoke about this on 30 March, it seemed that his officials had not properly explained to him his own Bill. He said that

“the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The”

police and crime

“panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 433.]

That suggests that the referendum was going to be between the commissioner’s precept and an alternative proposed by the panel. That is what we said would happen, but unfortunately the provisions of the Bill do not allow it to happen. In the case of the police precept, we are bringing in this third body—the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, not the local panel, has the power to trigger a referendum. That is a highly regressive step that will prevent the elected police and crime commissioner from establishing a responsible relationship with his chief constable—perhaps being able to get him more budget and, in return, getting different priorities for policing. They will always be looking over their shoulder to the Secretary of State, who is giving a standard rise that they cannot go above without the risk of a local referendum that would cost perhaps 2% of the council tax, which they would have to pay even if they won. This will have a chilling effect on our proposals for police accountability.

I am very disappointed, because in 2005 I wrote a book called “Direct Democracy” for which I had four co-authors—my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), and Daniel Hannan, who is now an MEP. In that, we called for direct democracy and the devolution of powers, and, in particular, an elected person in charge of overseeing the police who would have local powers. We still believed that in the coalition agreement and we still believed it in last year’s White Paper when we said that the panel would be able to trigger a referendum. It is terribly disappointing that this Bill fails to provide for that and instead hugs the power to the Secretary of State.

[Bob Blackman]

I want to make three points. The first is about the codes of conduct and the abolition of the Standards Board. I, like many local councillors at the time, was the subject of numerous referrals to the Standards Board. The first that anyone heard of it was when they received the letter from the Standards Board saying that it had decided to take no further action on the vexatious complaint. It could take many months and, in certain cases, years before a complaint was determined one way or the other. In cases that were chosen for investigation, the investigations could take the length of a councillor’s term of office before it was decided whether they were guilty.

I have concerns about what is being proposed. I completely agree with having a national standard for the codes of conduct that local authorities should impose. There should be national standards and everybody should abide by them, even though they will be monitored at a local level. There is a key concern about how valid complaints will be investigated. I have a concern about elected councillors overseeing complaints about other elected councillors and about how politicians might seek to gain party political advantage over one another through standards committees. The concept of having independent individuals in charge is of course welcome. However, the risk is whether such people can be found for every local authority and whether they will be of a suitable standard to make the system work. I have concerns but, broadly speaking, the Government’s amendments should be welcomed.

My second point touches on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on referendums. The key concern is about the difference between a local authority consulting the people it serves and it being bound by a referendum, possibly on a single proposition. I do not think that local authorities in this country consult properly. Instead, they notify the public that they will do something to them, regardless of what they think of it.

I will give an example from a local authority on which I used to sit. The London borough of Brent has decided to close half its libraries. The council put it to the public and 82% of people said that they did not like it. The answer from the council was, “We’re still going to do it.” That was the result of a consultation. The idea was overwhelmingly rejected, but the council are progressing with it. That would be a case, like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park described, in which a referendum would undoubtedly go against what the local authority wishes to do. However, that does not change the fact that local authorities are elected to serve and to make decisions. They should do so even if those decisions are not liked by the people whom they represent.

I will also cite the case of Bristol, which several years ago conducted a referendum on the level of council tax to be charged. The council put four options to the people of Bristol: a reduction in council tax with a drastic reduction in services; a marginal reduction in council tax with a marginal reduction in services; a stand-still option; or the council’s preferred option of an increase in council tax and keeping services at the same level. Lo and behold, the people voted for a substantial reduction in council tax and a substantial reduction in services—not quite what was expected. One has to be careful in taking on a referendum. For the purposes that I have described, a referendum is clearly not the route to follow.

Equally, as I have said in interventions, if we had referendums with a trigger of 20% or 30% of people signing a petition, that would not necessarily work if the turnout for such a referendum would be far too low. That would be ridiculous and would impose on local authorities an unfair basis for making decisions. As we all know, it is easy to get people to sign a petition, but it is another thing to get them to vote. Clearly there is a role for petitions in consultations, but using them to trigger referendums is difficult.

My third point relates to the position on council tax. I have always been an advocate for councils being free to set council tax at the level they choose. If councillors choose to impose a swingeing increase in council tax, the public have the right to vote them out at the next election. We should trust the people to do that. I have always been stringently opposed to the capping of council tax or previous forms of local taxation, because it takes away the decision-making powers of local authorities. Councils should not have referendums held over their heads on council tax, but people should have the power of the ballot box to remove councillors who vote for a swingeing increase. That is the right way to protect people.

Most local authorities in this country have their councillors elected by thirds, so the local electorate has the power every year to remove councils and councillors who choose to vote for large increases in council tax. In unitary authorities, there are all-out elections, which means that councillors, having been safely elected, can take decisions at the beginning of their cycle to get their betrayal out of the way before they face the threat of the ballot box three or four years later. Perhaps we need to re-examine the governance of local authorities and ask whether they should face more frequent local elections, rather than having periodic elections when the decisions made by the local electorate are often more about the national Government of the day than the decisions that are made at a local level.

Having spoken about those three key issues, I will conclude my remarks. I warmly welcome the amendments proposed by the Government.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I rise to speak about the referendum issue. Members will note that I am one of the signatories to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).

I support the principle of referendums and believe that they are a natural development of our democratic process. Having spent many years as a local councillor fighting against centralisation, I warmly welcome the moves that the Government are making, but they could go further. To give an example, I sponsored and secured a referendum in one ward of my unitary authority to abolish a town council. I did so because there was clear opposition to a council that was charging in excess of £100 per household for band A properties. There was an overwhelming vote to abolish that council. Unfortunately, the referendum was not binding, because it was held under the Local Government Act 2003, to which the Minister referred. The unitary council of North East Lincolnshire subsequently overturned the referendum result.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Outrageous.

[Martin Vickers]

I agree, it was outrageous that a decision of the electorate that had been arrived at democratically through the ballot box should be overturned by a local authority. Having granted the referendum initially, it should have reversed the result, if that was its wish, only through another referendum.

[Andrew Percy]

To assist my hon. Friend in his point, I add that in my constituency the people of Old Goole are seeking to separate from Goole and form their own parish council. There is a huge argument going on, and the one way in which it could be resolved is through a binding referendum.

[Martin Vickers]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, and I am sure Members of all parties can think of such examples.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made a valid point about premises that cater for people with mental health difficulties. I accept that local authorities have very difficult decisions to make in such cases. I can recall there being such a decision in my ward six or seven years ago, and if a referendum had been taken in the street in question there would certainly have been an overwhelming vote against such an establishment. However, it would be open to local authorities, as it is under the 2003 Act, to determine the arrangements for a referendum —whether it should be held in a ward or within the authority as a whole. There are ways of broadening the electoral base to cover such circumstances.

20:30

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made good points about turnouts. I accept that there should be an increase to 20% in the proportion of signatures needed to trigger a referendum, which would be a way of weeding out the frivolous requests. So would the other criteria that would be used to determine whether a referendum should go forward.

My hon. Friend’s amendment is an obvious move forward. We argue about referendums—only a couple of weeks ago we debated whether we should have one at national level. They are a natural development of the democratic process if we are to give our voters really meaningful power.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend’s points. I think Members of all parties have been guilty of trying to explain why they do not think particular referendums, on serious issues, should be binding.

If there were a referendum suggesting that councillors should not receive any money whatever for their work, I believe it would find popular support, yet councillors work hard and need some sort of recompense. If that referendum were binding, how would councillors deal with that situation?

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point, and my response is obvious—I am arguing in favour of binding referendums, so I believe that such a referendum would have to be binding. There could be turnout—

[Andrew Percy]

Thresholds.

[Martin Vickers]

That is the word I am looking for; I thank my hon. Friend. Such referendums could therefore easily be accommodated.

Members should appreciate that there is growing apathy and disenchantment with our whole political process. The Government have tried to respond to that through measures in the Bill, through e-petitions and so on, but the only way we can really give people power is by giving them a clear-cut vote on issues. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said that he would not press his amendment, I hope that it will spur the Government on to further developments in the months and years to come.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for coming so late to the debate. I am afraid I have been chairing a meeting elsewhere. I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is not in his place now, but of course he has assiduously attended the rest of the debate. I wanted to ask him a couple of questions, but maybe other sponsors of his amendment will be able to intervene to clarify matters.

I can see the attraction of holding referendums on issues that are politically significant in an area, so that local authorities can seek guidance. Even if they were not binding, they would at least create a debate, and the local authority could take into account the views expressed.

Proposed subsection (5) of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment sets out the local authorities that it would apply to, including

“the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority”.

I wish to ask the amendment’s supporters whether, under the regulations and rules to be laid before Parliament designing the mechanisms and ground rules for referendums, as mentioned in proposed subsection (11), universal suffrage would apply in the case of the common council of the City of London. In other words, will it be one person, one vote, or will businesses be able to purchase votes and outvote local residents, as they currently can? Referendums could enhance local democracy, but I do not want us to enhance the power of businesses to control the lives of residents with the City of London corporation area.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. My view—I can speak only for myself—is that democracy means one person, one vote, and that that would apply whether in the City of London or elsewhere.

[John McDonnell]

That is incredibly helpful, because although amendment (a) might not be pressed to a vote, the House in due course—fairly rapidly—will need to look at how undemocratic the City of London corporation actually is.

There are numerous examples of when a referendum in the City of London on the basis of universal suffrage—one person, one vote—would enable residents to address some of the abuses of the system that take place currently. If people want an example of those abuses, they should read the front page of The Guardian today. The City of London corporation has applied City cash—anything up to £100 million in local authority funding that is never audited or publicised; that completely lacks any form of transparency to local residents or the rest of the electorate in both the corporation area or elsewhere; and that is never investigated—to enhance a property development on the edge of the corporation area in Hackney. That also enhances the value of properties owned by Hammerson, which employs the lord mayor of the City of London corporation. A referendum in the City of London area could valuably take place on that matter. Residents could vote on whether it is appropriate for the City of London to enter into developments of that sort.

The Hackney example is not the only one; there was the Spitalfields development and opposition from the Barbican Association. The City of London corporation has ridden roughshod over the wishes of local residents to enhance the profits of businesses which employ council men on the corporation. If the hon. Member for Richmond Park is suggesting that the rules and regulations made under proposed subsection (11) of amendment (a) would ensure universal suffrage in the City of London corporation, it would be a major breakthrough for democracy in London.

I hope that the amendment is pressed to a Division if we gain assurances from all who have tabled the amendment that that is what it means. Even if we cannot use the amendment to prise open democracy in the City of London corporation, there will be other opportunities. Hon. Members from all parties should try to place this matter firmly on the agenda again, because allowing businesses to have the vote and to ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents in the corporation area is 21st-century abuse of power and democracy.

[Andrew Stunell]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, with plenty of interest added by Members’ personal experiences.

I appreciate the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) not to press amendment (a) to a Division. He will have seen in the course of the debate that the force is not with him, although he has raised a number of interesting aspects, which I am sure he will ensure are kept in front of the House in the years to come.

Other hon. Members have raised a wide range of issues, and perhaps the most persistent raiser of issues was the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who is not in the Chamber. This part of the Bill applies to local authorities; it does not attempt, and it never did attempt, to regulate community groups, neighbourhood forums or other non-governmental organisations. However, I remind the House that there is still a requirement on anybody spending public money to give a proper account of that spending and to be held accountable, if necessary in the courts, should they fail to do so. On the wider duty on anybody spending public money, the introduction of the equalities duty provides a substantial safeguard and remedy for those who feel hard done by as a consequence. I hope that the House will accept that as the right basis on which to proceed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) told us a shaggy bear story, but hidden behind it were some important observations, one of which was about the present system’s extensive capacity for creating trouble for council members going about their lawful business and trying to serve their community. He referred to a case in which essentially he was being bullied by a developer because of views he had expressed on a planning application. I am happy to tell him that, quite apart from our abolition of the Standards Board, our abolition of the pre-determination legislation, which is also right at the front of the Bill, will put in place a safeguard in such situations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) drew attention to the hard work done in the House of Lords, not least by our Liberal Democrat colleagues. Government Members acknowledge the fruitful dialogue in the Lords, which I believe has produced a much-improved Bill. She suggested that it might be appropriate for us to return to the standards regime and monitor its performance after a couple of years. More broadly, the Government have said that they want to monitor the impact of legislation as time goes by, and I hope that she will understand that the House always has the capacity to return to matters. No doubt the Select Committee and others will keep an eye not only on that provision in the Bill, but on all the others.

I heard the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), particularly on police and police commissioners. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for decentralisation, has recently written to my hon. Friend about that matter, and I know that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has also offered to liaise with him. I assume that he will want to take up that offer. He made several observations about what would happen in the United States, but I have reason to suspect that he is not in favour of introducing a federal system in the United Kingdom. In default of a federal system, we have to manage our own resources of governance.

On council tax referendums, I made the point in my introductory remarks that we are replacing a top-down limitation on what councils can spend and raise from the council tax with a process controlled by the electorate—the ones who pay for it—which is how local accountability is supposed to work in our democratic system. As those who did an A-level in this area will know, that is what we are all taught happens, but what has not happened for many years. We are changing a top-down financial control system to a bottom-up control system. In the eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, that might not be perfect, but I hope that he would accept that it is more than just a small notional improvement.

[Mark Reckless]

It might be that for local authorities we are just about doing as the Minister states, but it is not the case for the area of policing that I raised. The letter that I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely unsatisfactory, and the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has not happened. Importing the Localism Bill into the police framework makes a complete dog’s breakfast of the precept setting and contradicts the coalition agreement and last year’s “Policing in the 21st Century” White Paper.

[Andrew Stunell]

I am disappointed to hear my hon. Friend say that. Local people have as much right to take a view on excessive police precept increases as they do on increases in any other sector of local government. I believe that the provisions we have are right. I hope that he is not spurning the offer of a meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, because he might find it more productive than he evidently fears it would be.

20:45

A number of other hon. Members contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who eloquently pointed out that he, too, had been the victim of a vexatious complaint. He urged the Government to impose no limits at all on council tax, which should depend entirely on the views of councillors. That suggests that he perhaps does not recall that in earlier days that was the case. What we have is a system of accountability for financial decision making that is a huge improvement on the current top-down version, and one that I would ask him to observe in practice over the next few years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) supported the general thread of amendment (a), standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, but as I think we have agreed, that is a matter for a different day.

With his customary skill, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) found a way of introducing a completely different topic to the debate—a topic that I have no doubt he will bring back to the House on many future occasions, albeit perhaps in more propitious circumstances.

That brings me to the remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). I have to say to the House that there is some history here, because in times long gone, she and I were both members of Chester city council. I therefore know that many of her remarks were made with her tongue firmly in her cheek, as they certainly were in past days too. I just wonder whether there were two missing words from what she said—those two words were “thank you”—because her entire speech consisted of agreeing that the amendments that we are discussing are exactly the right ones to make and great improvements to the Bill.

I notice that the hon. Lady picked out my Liberal Democrat colleagues as being particularly egregious when it comes to making complaints. Indeed, a number of other Members in this debate have considered which political party is the worst. Let me tell the House that 80% of complaints to the Standards Board come from parish councils, on which, by and large, there is no political party representation. That, of course, is part of the scandal of the whole process. When I recently spoke at the annual conference of the parish clerks association—[Laughter.] I have become accustomed to a more exotic style of life. I put it to those at the conference, and they agreed, that had the introduction of the regime been beneficial, the behaviour of parish councils should have improved. What actually happened was a rising tide of complaints and no evidence at all that the regime improved standards. The aim of having a standards board was to improve standards, not simply to generate complaints.

I got a hint from the hon. Lady, and also from her hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), that if they had their way, they would return to a centrally determined quango doing exactly the same thing as the Standards Board. I have to say that hankering after that quango is not the way ahead. If she is concerned about the Bill not being localist enough, she has a slightly peculiar way of showing it.

The hon. Lady also mentioned pay accountability and transparency, and I think that she was welcoming what we have done. I want to pick up one of the points that she made. She said that she regretted that councils would not be compelled to pass the same duty on to outside organisations that were in receipt of council funding to deliver their services. I must point out to her that the legislation gives them the power to do that if they choose to do so, but it does not compel them to do so. I would just remind her that that is localism. We believe that that is exactly the right balance to ensure that local authorities have a framework in which they must operate, and a framework that they may apply to others who provide services for them.

The hon. Lady also mentioned local non-binding referendums, and she was characteristically generous. May I point out that her suggestion that I might not have survived comes ill from a team that started off with three people in Committee and has now been completely reconfigured, and that she herself is a newcomer to it? Those of us who worked through the Committee and Report stages know the hard work that went in and the efforts that have been made to achieve a better Bill.

The Bill will lift the burden of bureaucracy from councils. It will free them up, the better to serve their local communities. It will give local authorities greater control over their governance and less unjustifiable meddling by central Government. The changes made in the Lords take the reforms further, strengthen our provisions and sweep away even more of the deadening prescription and regulation that has for far too long constrained local authorities. I commend all the Lords amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 14 agreed to.

Lords amendments 15 to 49 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 23, 29, 40 and 49.

Clause 31

Power to require local or public authorities to make payments in respect of certain EU financial sanctions

[Greg Clark]

I beg to move, That the House agrees with Lords amendment 50.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 51 to 94, 227, 228, 230, 234, 241, 244, 246, 247, 250, 252 to 254 and 260.

[Greg Clark]

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) should count himself lucky to have had an invitation from the parish clerks. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) recently spoke at the annual general meeting of the British Toilet Association. I gather that he was flushed with success after making that speech.

I approach the Dispatch Box with some trepidation, because I was about to say that we had achieved “consensus in the House of Lords”, but on the basis of the earlier contribution from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), I fear that all six of those words make her see red. It seems that this Chamber should make a unilateral declaration of independence from the House of Lords, that nothing good can come from there, and that all decisions have to be made here. So I should be careful. As for consensus, the hon. Lady would pick a fight in an empty room. She managed to be warlike on amendments with which she wholeheartedly agreed, so goodness knows how we are going to get on with this group. None the less, we have achieved a degree of consensus and listened to the representations that were made in our own Public Bill Committee and in the other place.

We need to devolve power to local authorities, but there is clearly a risk that when we do, the powers that formerly resided with central Government could expose the nation to the risk of infraction proceedings if they put us in breach of EU obligations. This was a matter that needed to be addressed. It is only fair that council tax payers should not pay for poor behaviour on the part of local authorities in areas other than their own. That was the purpose of introducing the provisions on EU fines. We have had some useful conversations about those.

The concerns raised both in Committee and in the other place were that Ministers should not be the prosecutor, judge, jury—and, in some cases, the co-defendant too—on some of those matters. Thanks to representations from the Local Government Association and the Greater London authority, we have thought carefully and hard about how we can allay some of those concerns.

I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the work of the late Sir Simon Milton, who, in evidence to the Localism Bill Committee when we first met, not only raised concerns about those procedures, but suggested a way forward that would satisfy all our concerns. He went away with his officials and reflected on that. During that process, very sadly, Sir Simon died. All of us in this place greatly regret his passing. We have appreciated his good counsel in these matters over the years. His colleague Daniel Moylan took up the work that Sir Simon had begun, and the fruit of that work is reflected in the Lords amendments, particularly amendments 57, 234 and 246. They provide that there should be a new stage of designation for authorities that might be subject to a fine.

I owe particular thanks to Lord Tope and Lord McKenzie, who introduced amendments to that effect in the other place. What these amendments will require is that Ministers should designate any authority that might be at risk of fines by affirmative order. Such an authority can be identified only if the infraction is the responsibility of the local authority, only if the actions follow its designation, and only in relation to specific infraction cases. There should be no retrospectivity.

The second set of amendments involve the creation of an independent advisory panel before any fines can be recovered from a local authority. Baroness Gardner of Parkes suggested this approach in amendment 58. It would mean a public report being made to the Minister by an independent panel, and it would include a fair apportionment of the culpability of any local authority so fined.

Amendments 59 et al enable the local authority to plan how it would meet the costs, and it is clear through these amendments that the authority’s responsibility for any fines ends when its culpability ends. The fines cannot continue beyond the point at which the authority has corrected its behaviour.

Some minor and technical amendments cover non-devolved matters in devolved areas. They proceed with the full agreement of each of the devolved Administrations. There are mirror powers for Welsh Ministers to pass on fines in their own area.

These changes sent to us by the House of Lords deliver on our commitment to introduce fines for councils only when they are responsible for the United Kingdom being fined, only when they can remedy the situation, and only when they can afford to pay. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry that the Minister, who we all know is from the soft south and cannot deal with stroppy northern women—

[Greg Clark]

I am moved to tell the hon. Lady that I was born and bred in Middlesbrough, and that no resident of that fine town has ever been described as being of the soft south.

[Helen Jones]

I stand corrected. I should have said that the Minister has probably spent too long down in the south. I am now going to surprise him, however, by agreeing with him. The worry about the original measures was that they risked imposing fines on councils for matters over which they had no control. I think that has been corrected in the House of Lords, so we support the amendments.

Lords amendment 50 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 51 to 112 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 54 to 60, 62, 64, 66 to 69, 72, and 74 to 112.

Clause 61

Council tax calculations by billing authorities in England

21:00

[Andrew Stunell]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 113.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 114 to 150, 236, 236, 251, 334 to 349, and 414 to 417.

[Andrew Stunell]

The amendments focus on the community right to challenge, on assets of community value, and on council tax referendums. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said at the beginning of our debates, the fundamental aim of the Bill is to shift power away from central Government and back to local communities. This part of the Bill enables decentralisation to be taken beyond the town hall, so that we can empower communities and enable them to play a bigger part in local life, whether their aim is to improve local services or to save treasured assets. Community rights will give communities more opportunities to do exactly that. When it is successful, it will give them a chance to compete to deliver those services themselves, using local knowledge, expertise and innovation to improve local services.

Assets of community value will hand communities the initiative so that they can identify important local assets such as the old town halls, village shops and pubs that are of value to community life. There are already many good examples across the country of communities coming together to take over local pubs, shops, libraries and community centres. I think that all of us will have seen examples—if not in our constituencies, during visits to other areas. However, there are many more cases in which communities have missed out because they were not aware that a building was up for sale, or because when they discovered that, they lacked the time to make a viable bid. The new right will make it easier for communities to save local assets that are important to them, and will give them the time that they need to prepare a bid to take them when they come up for sale.

We are also replacing central Government capping with council tax referendums. I had intended to say more about that, but I think that I covered it adequately in the last debate.

A wide range of bodies have said that the powers and opportunities that we are providing are long overdue and very welcome. The National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Locality have all expressed the view that we are doing the right thing, and during the Bill’s passage Members on both sides of the House have expressed broad support for the principles of our reforms.

However, Members wanted us to go further in some respects, and expressed concern about the details of a number of other aspects of our proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been in listening mode throughout. We have considered the points that have been made not just by Members of the House of Commons, but by peers and interested parties outside. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) played an important role in the debates that led to the amendments, and in the other place Lord Greaves, Lord Tope, Lord Patel of Bradford and Baroness Hamwee made helpful contributions.

Although we had some excellent debates here in Committee and on Report, we did not think it appropriate to amend the provisions until we had had a chance to consider all the responses to the consultation carefully. That consultation closed in May. Following consideration of the responses and the debates in the House of Lords, we tabled amendments on Report intended to improve the workability of the provisions in the Bill and strengthen their effectiveness.

On the right to challenge, the consultation and debates in both Houses demonstrated that there was an appetite to extend the reforms, but also that there were concerns about the prescription in the Bill. To address the former, amendment 115 makes it clear that the right could be extended to require a Minister or Government Department to consider expressions of interest. To address the latter concern, we have removed a number of delegated powers, particularly those allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe time scales associated with the right to challenge. Instead, under amendments 118 to 121 it will be for local authorities to set their own time scales, while having regard to factors to be set out in guidance.

There are also a number of minor amendments to the right to challenge. I will not detain the House by describing them in detail, but, for example, we have made it clear that the definition of community body in the provisions does not include a public or local authority, and we have ensured that if the right is extended, it would continue to apply only to services provided in England.

There has also been broad support for the principle of giving communities greater opportunities to identify assets of community value and more time to raise the funds. We have also had constructive discussions about improving the practical application of the provisions and avoiding overly detailed rules. I would particularly like to thank Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Lord Cameron of Dillington, Earl Cathcart and Lord Howard of Rising for their contributions to improving these provisions.

We have listened carefully, and amendments 122 to 126 define land of community value based on principal use for social well-being and social interests, including cultural, recreational and sporting interests. Amendments 127 to 130 make it clear that only a voluntary or community body with a local connection may nominate an asset to be listed by a local authority, which will safeguard against vexatious nominations by individuals. We have also improved the workability of these provisions by exempting certain types of relevant disposal: those where the community is not at risk of losing the asset. Amendments 140 and 144 exempt several types of relevant disposals from the moratorium in the Bill. As a result, the provisions will not cover situations such as where a village shop is to change hands as a going concern and the community will still get the benefit of a shop, nor will they capture a situation where a transfer is made between family members or through inheritance or gifts. Further exempt disposals will be set out in regulations. Most importantly, we have ensured that groups will have enough time to raise funds to buy assets; that was a key concern of community groups.

Amendments 141 to 145 specify that the interim moratorium will be six weeks, the full moratorium will be six months, and the protected period in which a further application cannot be made will be 18 months, starting from the first date. In other words, there will, in effect, be a 12-month moratorium period. We have also reduced the amount of prescription. Amendments 131, 132, 134 and 135 give local authorities greater freedom to decide how to administer and publicise lists of assets of community value in their local area. In summary, these amendments will ensure that the provisions give communities a powerful new tool to preserve assets of community value, while ensuring that we do not create unintended consequences.

These reforms were welcomed by the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action and by the Country Land and Business Association. When both those organisations claim victory, it is clear that we must be doing something right.

Finally, this group also contains a number of smaller technical amendments, which include provision for ensuring that levies made on local authorities by levying bodies are not part of the calculation on whether a council tax increase is excessive, and for ensuring that only residents, and not business voters, in the City of London are entitled to vote in a council tax referendum. I hope that that gives at least a little comfort to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Overall, I hope that hon. Members will agree that these amendments significantly improve the Bill and address issues of common concern, and so will agree to them unanimously.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Labour Members broadly support the amendments, which support some of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). This whole part of the Bill had to be substantially rewritten following discussions in this Chamber, in Committee and in the other place. Although it purported to give communities more power over their areas, it actually gave a lot more power to the Secretary of State to outline the time scale for local authorities to consider a transfer of community assets and on what those were. We are pleased, therefore, that a definition of land of community value has been put in the Bill and that some of the ridiculously prescriptive powers relating to the community right to bid have been removed or put where they should have been put—with local authorities. We are also pleased that the amendments should enable local authorities to set and publish their own time scales for deciding on community expressions of interest. I hope that that is helpful to them and to the local communities that wish to take over assets.

[John McDonnell]

I shall be extremely brief. I wholeheartedly welcome this part of the Bill and the amendments proposed, but I would also welcome some advice from the Minister on the time scale for the implementation of the Bill and this bit of it. I shall quickly give a relevant example.

In my constituency, a library has been closed and a new one opened. I did not get everything I wanted, but I congratulate the local authority on opening the new library. For some time, there has been an expectation—indeed, promises have been made by the local authority in the past—that the previous and now redundant library would be handed over for community use. Despite a petition signed by more than 4,000 people urging the local authority to provide this facility for community use in some form, the London borough of Hillingdon is now rushing ahead with its sale. Last week, the authority actually gave itself planning permission for housing, despite the fact that I appeared at the petition hearing with the petition and directly quoted words of wisdom from the Secretary of State. He had cited a library being made redundant as an example of exactly what this Bill is intended to address.

So I ask the Minister about the London borough of Hillingdon’s undue haste to give itself planning permission for housing and to sell the site off to pre-empt the coming into force of this Bill. Will he assure me that something can be done to persuade the authority to listen to the local people and enable us to use this Bill for the purposes for which it was intended: to empower local people in respect of just this sort of asset? I would welcome any assurance that he could give, any advice that he might wish to render to the London borough of Hillingdon and anything that he can say about the importance of the community being listened to on such examples.

[Andrew Stunell]

I welcome the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) to the Front Bench and welcome her welcome for the amendments that we have introduced. I understand that she obviously has to go through the ritual motions of accusing us of U-turns, but what we actually have is a Government who are listening and ready to share their learning with the House. We did not come to the House with a finished product, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear from the moment the Bill was produced. I believe that the Bill has been improved at each stage of its progression and has now reached a state of perfection.

21:15

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has, as ever, skilfully brought to the House an issue of great importance to him and his constituents. I can tell him that, subject to events tonight, the Bill will go for Royal Assent later in the year and will come into force next year. He will not be surprised to hear that it does not contain any retrospective provisions and I am afraid there is nothing I can say that will make it retrospective. He invites me to join him in criticising the council for its decisions. That is his right and prerogative as a constituency MP and I am pleased that he is doing so but, in the spirit of localism, as a Minister I am bound to say that these are matters for local decision making, although I might have a view about the decision it took.

[John McDonnell]

May I clarify that I am not enticing the Minister to criticise the local authority? However, there is an issue here. A Bill is coming to its conclusion and will shortly be enacted. Should not true a local authority taking a reasonable decision and taking into account all relevant factors take into account the fact that the Government intend the Bill to be implemented rapidly? Should it not therefore act in the spirit of the Bill?

[Andrew Stunell]

Perhaps it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the report of this exchange in Hansard is drawn to the attention of the council leader.

I can add a little more information about the timetable. The implementation of the rights requires secondary legislation in accordance with the procedures agreed by the House. Affirmative resolution measures require parliamentary time and consultation and we cannot prejudge exactly what the outcome will be. However, preparatory work is well in hand and the ministerial team certainly intend to get all these rights not only on the statute book but make them effective and active in local communities as soon as possible.

[Mr Raynsford]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been in his seat long. He really ought to think about whether he wants to make this intervention. Is it crucial?

[Mr Raynsford]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Then I shall allow it.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know that the Government have taken the view, in relation to the next part of the Bill on planning, that their intended policy should be a material consideration for local authorities when assessing planning matters. Would it not be appropriate to do exactly the same in respect of the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Should it not be made clear to the council that the imminent implementation of this measure should be a material consideration when deciding the future of the library?

[Andrew Stunell]

The right hon. Gentleman is being a little naughty. As he knows, the material consideration is a matter for the courts, not for interpretation by the Government. Of course, it is open to the local authority to take account of forthcoming legislation and, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will point out, that might provide an opportunity for it to move ahead of the change just as much as it might incline it to wait for the measure to be implemented. As ever, one should be careful what one wishes for in this place.

Lords amendment 113 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 114 to 150 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 114, 115, 131, 148 and 150.

Clause 94

Abolition of regional strategies

[Greg Clark]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 151.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 152 and 153.

Lords amendment 154, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 155 and 156.

Lords amendment 157, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 158 to 165, 237, 238, 240, 257, 262, and 350 to 368.

Lords amendment 369, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 370, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 371 to 382, and 418 to 425.

[Greg Clark]

Among the areas where centralisation has increased over the years is in the planning system. The regional spatial strategies, whatever their intentions, clearly took power from local communities. We made good progress in Committee in addressing the replacement for regional strategies in dealing with larger than local matters. The Bill introduces more opportunities for neighbourhoods through neighbourhood planning, and brings in compulsory pre-application scrutiny.

As we have worked through, we have established a good deal of common ground. The Committee debate focused on the duty to co-operate. Informed by the Royal Town Planning Institute and discussions across the Front Benches, we listened to the Committee and, as we indicated on Report, made various changes that have been reflected in the Bill as it left the House. We said on Report that the neighbourhood planning section would be amended in the House of Lords. We considered carefully suggestions made from all parts of the House, and the amendments before us today reflect that.

It is important to say that we want to see more planning, not less. We feel that over time the imposition from above has stood in the way of local communities expressing their own vision of the future of their community. That is what we want to give them a greater chance to do. At the heart of that is the need to achieve sustainable development. Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides a duty on those preparing local plans to do so with the aim of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.

Amendment 370 extends that principle to neighbourhood planning, with an explicit condition that it should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The duty to co-operate will require that public bodies should co-operate effectively on sustainable development. We debated in Committee whether to include the definition of sustainable development on the face of the Bill or whether it should be in guidance. I made a commitment to think seriously about that, which we did. We had various discussions in the other place involving Members on both sides of the House.

Let me say at the outset that there is no issue in principle with the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in their amendment (a). It reflects the 2005 sustainable development strategy, which has not been repealed. In evidence not to the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to which I shall be giving evidence later in the week, but to the Environmental Audit Committee I and a DEFRA Minister made it clear that the 2005 strategy remains extant and we have no difficulty with the content of it. Of course, that has been captured in previous guidance—PPS1 in particular—and was updated from the first iteration of the sustainable development strategy in 1999.

There was a serious debate in the other place about whether the best place to reflect the shared view of sustainable development is on the face of the Bill, or whether that should be, as it always has been, in guidance. On Report there was some concern that a statutory definition makes it difficult to capture the full range of aspects of sustainability, which may include but go beyond some of the provisions in the sustainable development strategy. I happen to think, and I have said to the Environmental Audit Committee, that some of the thinking in the natural environment White Paper makes some helpful suggestions that one should be looking for a net gain for nature. It is important to be open to that.

In the other place, Baroness Andrews, the chairman of English Heritage and a recent former planning Minister, made some of the same arguments about heritage. She said:

“I feel strongly that one of the elements that is not in this amendment”—

the amendment before us is similar or even identical to the one that was considered in the other place—

“. . . is including something about our vital cultural and heritage needs, including those of future generations.”

She went on to say that

“one might add, for example, ‘meeting the diverse social, cultural, heritage needs of all people in existing and future communities and promoting well-being and social cohesion and inclusion’.”

The noble Lady said that

“if we are to debate the amendment”,

the Minister should consider whether the definition could be sufficiently flexible to include

“the new elements of the definition.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2011; Vol. 730, c. 1750.]

I cite that as an example of someone who shares our good will on that point and has recent experience in government of planning and of some of the difficulties.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says about Baroness Andrews, but the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report stated:

“The Government agrees that we should put the pursuit of sustainable development right at the heart of the planning system’s objectives and operation, and that we should be clear about what this commitment means in practice.”

How can they be clear about that if it is not in the Bill?

[Greg Clark]

I hope to convince the hon. Lady when I say more on that in a few minutes. As we are considering Lords amendments, I will reflect on the conclusions that were drawn after extensive debates on all these issues in the House of Lords and what its settled view was. Lord Howarth of Newport, a Labour peer, said:

“Like other noble Lords I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt a full definition on the face of primary legislation because… the right place for that is guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1078.]

The Opposition spokesman, Lords McKenzie of Luton, in summing up, said:

“We accept that definitions are not going to be included in the Bill but I hope that at least we shall be able to get very strong assurances that there will be full definitions in the NPPF.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1076.]

At the end of the debate, he said that he was happy to withdraw the same amendment because my noble Friend Baroness Hanham had

“given the strongest degree of reassurance I have heard to date on the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1088.]

A view was reached in the House of Lords on the basis of assurances that my noble Friend gave. I will not quote from some of the other reflections, but some colleagues there said that this went even further than they had expected.

In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Government are committed to a clear definition of sustainable development and think that policy is the right place for it. I have said clearly that we have no difficulties with the 2005 definition, which I think is ably reflected in the amendment. Hon. Members will know that I cannot pre-empt the consultation on the NPPF, but in all the deliberations we have had on the Bill my assurances about the Government’s good faith have always been reflected and brought to a final conclusion. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will bear that in mind.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say that the frustration I felt in Committee is now overflowing. The Minister is talking about pre-empting things, but surely by having legislation before he has the policy he is pre-empting the whole process. Everything is back to front. How can we legislate without seeing the detail of the NPPF in its final form?

[Greg Clark]

That was considered in the House of Lords. These things have always been captured in policy. I could not have been clearer when I said that we have no difficulty with the 2005 strategy or its wording. A cogent case has been made—let me put it that way—for expanding and strengthening the definition in the NPPF. I hope that that demonstrates, on the basis of this House’s experience of the scrutiny of the Bill and the commitments the Government have made, that there is no difference in our commitment to the matter. Indeed, I have expressed a personal view that I think we could go a little further than the 2005 strategy. We will reflect on these contributions in the consultation on the NPPF and respond in due course.

Let me say something about neighbourhood planning, because from the start we all agreed on our ambition to give communities greater opportunity to provide for a vision of their future at a level below the local planning authority. We had some debate about whether it should apply only in parished areas or whether it should be available to non-parished areas, and there was again a degree of consensus on the idea that it should be available to those parts of the country, including the place to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) referred, where there was no appetite for a town council but where, nevertheless, there might be an appetite for a neighbourhood plan.

21:30

We agreed to strengthen the safeguards, concerns about which were expressed in this place and in the House of Lords. We have done that in Lords amendments 356 to 358 and 368. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington invoked The Dog and Duck as the test of a place that should be used for the gatherings of neighbours in contemplating a neighbourhood plan, and he suggested that its saloon bar should have a minimum of 21 people. In fact, I think he suggested fewer, but we thought there should be 21, and that found favour elsewhere. Such forums should be open as a right to every ward councillor, and it is important that democratically elected representatives should participate, and that neighbourhood planning should contribute to the social, environmental and economic benefit of the area.

Lords amendment 370 introduces the sustainable development test for local planning. Plans, in their examination, will need to conform and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and the amendment also specifies that a neighbourhood plan can apply to all or part of a parish or neighbourhood area.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 369 would provide a statutory right for members of communities to comment. It is clearly important that people are able to express their views, but we regard the amendment as unnecessary, because Lords amendment 369 includes community consultation, with a requirement for a statement of consultation to go forward for examination, and we are consulting now on the regulations to introduce it.

Opposition Front Benchers also introduced the proposal that businesses should be able to participate in making neighbourhood plans. Lords amendment 360 allows councils to designate business neighbourhoods that are wholly or largely occupied by businesses, but there will be a double lock: there will need to be two referendums, and if either the business community or the residential community objects, the matter will be for the local council to decide.

The House of Lords has sent back various amendments on the community infrastructure levy, and we think it important that neighbourhoods retain a stake in the benefits and some contribution to the cost of hosting development, so there is a suggestion that a meaningful proportion of CIL be allocated to them. We will consult on what proportion that should be.

We have considered the restrictions on the use of CIL in response to comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) made. The House of Lords concluded that there should be greater flexibility in the use of CIL revenues for that proportion which goes to neighbourhoods, recognising that the effects of development on neighbourhoods are local and diverse, and that it should be possible to consider them.

In considering CIL schedules, the independent assessor must already consider the viability of rates of community infrastructure levy, and we will provide statutory guidance, including an assessment that that should consider the delivery of affordable housing.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington are therefore unnecessary and would remove some of the transparency that CIL offers. There would be a return to case-by-case deals, negotiated privately, which provide no greater benefit than sticking to section 106.

There are some technical amendments on strategic planning. Lords amendments 151 to 155 allow the removal of regional strategies by an order laid by the Secretary of State, rather than through a provision to have their abolition commenced by order. We intend to lay orders revoking the regional strategies as soon as possible after Royal Assent, subject to the voluntary strategic environmental assessment in which we are engaged.

Amendment 156 strengthens the test of soundness of the duty to co-operate, and amendment (a) deals with transitional arrangements. Again, I want to assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and his colleagues that there will be transitional arrangements. In a system that is designed to advantage plan making, in the move from one system to another, it was always intended that we would not contemplate anything that does not allow local authorities to maintain their ability to plan for the future and make decisions in accordance with their needs. So there is no need for legislative measures. Such an approach can be delivered through policy, and we will set that out very clearly in our response to the consultation. I give that commitment.

[Mr Betts]

We on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government received much evidence on the important issue of transitional arrangements. Does the Minister accept that the purpose of transitional arrangements is to enable local authorities to adjust to the new planning regime that will eventually be implemented, and to give them time to do so properly? There will be detailed, thorough negotiations with the Local Government Association in trying to reach an agreement about what a proper length of time for that transitional arrangement should be.

[Greg Clark]

I concur with that.

Overall, the amendments improve the Bill. I am grateful to their lordships for the time they spent scrutinising and approving them, and to all Members of this House and the other place who participated in initiating the amendments we have back with us today.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I want to try to deal with a number of issues arising from the Lords amendments very quickly indeed. I shall start with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 154 on transitional arrangements.

As with many other key aspects of the Bill, hon. Members will know that discussions have already taken place in this House and in the other place about the need for some form of clear transitional arrangements to be specified in the Bill. In the early stages, it was evident that transitional arrangements were not at the forefront of the Government’s planning agenda but, as time has gone on, it has become increasingly apparent that, without them, the local planning system could be thrown into chaos and confusion.

As such, it is worth trying one last time to convince the Government of the need to include transitional arrangements in the Bill. That seems particularly necessary because the arrangements are needed very soon. Therefore, the alternative of including them in the national planning policy framework when it is eventually published, which was raised in the other place, is not practical. Previous significant planning legislation in 2004 and 2008 put clear transitional arrangements in the legislation to assist local authorities in moving from one planning system to another. This Bill should do the same.

I heard the Minister’s comments about amendment (a) to Lords amendment 157 on the community infrastructure levy, but Labour Members have grave concerns about the degree of prominence the Government are giving to the issue of unviability and the extent to which that might limit the application of the community infrastructure levy in practice. It is extremely important for there to be independent assessment of the developers’ costs whenever they are arguing unviability. We would like the Minister to consider the matter and if he does not address it in the Bill, to do so in the guidance that accompanies the Bill, so that such a situation does not occur.

The amendment to Lords amendment 369 is very straightforward. In keeping with prescribed requirements, before a neighbourhood planning order can be submitted to the local authority, the amendment would require public consultation to take place. In particular, we want to make sure that community and voluntary organisations get a chance for their voices to be heard. Labour is very keen to ensure, wherever possible, that community and voluntary organisations are able to be fully represented and engaged in the planning process. We would like Lords amendment 369 to be strengthened if possible.

I do not wish to go on at length about our amendment to Lords amendment 370, because we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the need for the Bill to have a definition of sustainable development. The current definition in the NPPF is not strong enough, and we would like the Minister to consider taking on board the definition in the 2005 sustainable development strategy. That is very important.

We understand why neighbourhood business areas have been put into the Bill, but we are concerned to ensure that consultation on those areas includes local residential communities. I will finish my comments there because we would, if possible, like to get to vote on amendment (a) to Lords amendment 154 and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 370.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill and these amendments as we pass powers and responsibilities away from Westminster to local authorities.

There is sometimes a dissonance between the laws that we prescribe here in Parliament and their impact on the front line. I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions to clarify clause 94 and the abolition of the dreaded regional spatial strategies in relation to a constituency dilemma that we face in Bournemouth. Bournemouth borough council is currently drafting its core strategy—the local plan. That is the significant document of planning intent for the next few years but it is still subject to the old regional spatial strategy because the Bill has not passed into law. The RSS obliges councils to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Three locations have been earmarked for permanent sites in the proximity of the green belt in the northern part of my constituency. The locals are obviously concerned about this. We had a small debate about nimbyism earlier, but clearly Bournemouth borough council should now have the right to determine whether it wishes to pursue this instead of its being imposed on it by Westminster.

I would argue that three Gypsy and Traveller sites in close proximity in a very quiet part of one single community is a bit much. The area is part of Bournemouth’s very small and diminishing green belt. This is also about sharing and quid pro quo—about assets we have in Dorset that are used by the wider conurbation. For example, we have a vibrant town centre, an airport, and incineration facilities. Bournemouth took the biggest hit as regards housing development following the numbers that were imposed on Dorset by the previous Government; most of the housing built in the county was built in Bournemouth. There is therefore a feeling in Bournemouth that we have already contributed, to some degree, to planning law and planning responsibility. There is therefore a question as to whether it is right for these Gypsy and Traveller sites to be imposed on the area as they have been.

Clause 94 removes the regional spatial strategy, but the Bill is not yet law and the core strategy from Bournemouth borough council has to be submitted. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the removal of the RSS changes the obligations of all core strategies, that there will be an opportunity for councils right across the country to re-submit those core strategies once the Bill receives Royal Assent, and that this all sits well with the other legislation that is affected—the Housing Act 2004, which also covers provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites? I would be grateful for clarification on those issues. To confirm the feelings of residents, I am running a petition that I will shortly hand to the Minister with a collection of signatures to ensure that this message is understood. I look forward to his reply.

[Annette Brooke]

I welcome the Lords amendments and will comment on two aspects of them.

I agree that transitional arrangements are of prime importance. I accept that they do not necessarily have to be in the Bill, but I urge the Minister to provide some clarity on them as soon as is practical because it is making planning difficult in many respects in local areas.

21:45

Following on from the comments of hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), all Dorset councillors are currently consulting on potential Traveller sites. It will be helpful if there is timely clarity on the consultation on Traveller sites, so that councils are clear about their position.

I have made much of the point that there should be a definition for sustainable development, preferably based on the 2005 definition. I have taken from the Minister tonight a clear indication that we will get a stronger definition of sustainable development and that it is likely to be in the national planning policy framework. I welcome that comment. Of course, I shall return to the Minister to make further comments if that is not the case.

[Mr Speaker]

Is the Minister looking to speak again?

[Greg Clark]

I am happy to.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister. If one pops the question, one is likely to get the answer.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker; I do not know what to make of that comment. I will respond to a few of the points that have been made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods).

I have been clear that there will be transitional arrangements and that we will ensure that they are produced in a timely way so that there is no difficulty with authorities preparing for the introduction of the national planning policy framework. That does not require an amendment. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham does not specify what the transitional arrangements should be. All it does is to elicit the commitments that I have given her tonight. I see that she is nodding. I hope that she accepts that and that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) takes the same view.

On the community infrastructure levy, the regulations already require the independent assessment of viability when an authority considers a claim for CIL relief from a developer to be unviable, especially in the case of affordable housing. I give that commitment. If the hon. Member for City of Durham has any suggestion that the guidance is inadequate in any way, I am happy to meet her to consider that, but that has not been our experience so far.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) knows that we recently concluded a consultation on Gypsy and Traveller policy. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that, but I would say that the abolition of the regional strategies puts clearly into the hands of local authorities the ability to assess the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities across the country. Of course, the changes that we have discussed tonight provide for a fairer system of enforcement, whereby a planning application that is introduced retrospectively does not stay the enforcement action, which has sometimes been the case.

[Mr Ellwood]

Bournemouth borough council received legal advice encouraging it to continue with the legal process of going to consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) suggested. However, I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) that the legal advice given to his council was that it did not need to pursue that process because the intent of the Government was that the regional spatial strategy would be removed and that therefore the core strategies did not need to include Gypsy and Traveller sites. One council is being told one thing and another is being told something else.

[Greg Clark]

That is often the case with legal advice. This is a matter for the courts. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) pointed out that the weight given to emerging policy is a matter for decision makers. It is not possible, however tempting, for Ministers to direct decision makers on that point. Regional strategies have set out guidance to date, but it is for decision makers to decide how much weight they want to give to the Government’s intentions in revoking regional strategies.

I shall conclude by saying a little about the definition of sustainable development. I think it is obvious to every Member who has participated in these debates that our intention is to reflect, through guidance, a stronger and more expansive definition. I have made it quite clear that the 2005 strategy offers a basis that has been commended to us by many respondents to the consultation. It is extant, and I have no difficulty with it. We may be able to go further in some respects, but it is clear and reflects the considered views of both Houses.

The colleague of the hon. Member for City of Durham in the other place thought it was right to withdraw the Opposition amendment there on the basis of the same assurances. Given that, and given that the consultation has closed and it will not be much longer before she can see the outcome of our deliberations, I hope she will not press her amendment on the subject. I commend all the Lords amendments in this group to the House.

Lords amendment 151 agreed to.

Lords amendments 152 and 153 agreed to.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 154.—(Roberta Blackman-Woods.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:52

Division 392

Ayes: 205

---

Labour: 201
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 305

---

Conservative: 254
Liberal Democrat: 49

22:07

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F)

Lords amendment 154 agreed to.

Lords amendments 155 to 441 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 157 to 165, 225, 226, 250 to 254, 257, 260, 294, 295, 302, 312, 334, 335, 337 to 344, 349, 371, 376, 377, 387, 389, 395, 399 to 402.

Business without Debate

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Coast Protection

That the draft Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 5 September, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)),

That the draft Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Tom Blenkinsop be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Julie Hilling be added.—(James Duddridge.)

Committees

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 and 8 together.

Ordered,

Communities and Local Government

That Steve Rotheram be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Bill Esterson be added.

Education

That Nic Dakin be discharged from the Education Committee and Alex Cunningham be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Teachers’ Pension Scheme

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

22:08

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

A couple of weeks ago, Andy Yeadon of John Leggott college and Stephen Buck and John Outhwaite of Frederick Gough school brought a petition to me that I should like to place before the House on their behalf and that of the other petitioners from John Leggott college and Frederick Gough school who have signed it.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of staff at John Leggott College, Scunthorpe, and Frederick Gough School, Scunthorpe,

Declares that the Petitioners note that the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, along with other schemes, was reformed in 2007 to ensure sustainability and viability for the long term, declares that the Petitioners reject the Government’s claim that such schemes are unaffordable and a drain on taxpayers, further declares that the Petitioners believe that proposed changes to public sector pensions, including those of teachers, lecturers, principles and head teachers working in maintained schools, academics, independent schools and teaching colleges are unjustified and declares that the Petitioners believe that continuing government changes to these pensions will be deeply damaging to staff recruitment, retention, mobility, morale and motivation and will jeopardise the education of all children and young people.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw its proposals on reform of teachers’ pensions, and conduct a valuation of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P000974]

Patient Security (Mental Health System)

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

22:09

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important topic in the Chamber tonight. I should declare at the outset my position as a vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health.

The Government’s recent mental health strategy stated that mental ill health represented up to 23% of the total burden of ill health in the UK, and that it was the largest single cause of disability. At least one in four adults will, at some point in their life, experience a period of mental ill health. For some, it may be a relatively mild, one-off episode. For others, the first episode will herald the start of a long-term relationship with the mental health services in all their guises. Such episodes, whether short term or long term, have a profound effect not only on the person suffering with a mental health condition but on their families and friends, many of whom will never have come into contact with these conditions or this part of the NHS before.

In the most serious cases, a patient might spend a period of time in an acute care setting, either voluntarily or while being detained under the Mental Health Act for their own welfare and the welfare of those around them. At such times, the patient and their families and loved ones will expect the patient to be kept safe and secure while they are given the appropriate therapy and treatment to enable them to resume their place in our communities. That expectation, and the fact that it is sometimes not fulfilled, are the focus of this short debate tonight.

In June 2010, shortly after I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough, I was approached by a constituent, Glyn Brookes, who told me about the tragic death of his daughter, Kirsty. I appreciate that the Minister is unlikely to be able to respond to this particular case, although I have sent his office a copy of the coroner’s report into Kirsty’s death. However, it is because of this case that I have ended up leading this debate tonight.

Kirsty was a patient at the Bradgate unit at University Hospitals of Leicester. She was able to escape from the unit using the frame of an external door to help her. Her escape was not dealt with as it should have been, and she was able to commit suicide before either the hospital authorities or the police found her. This has clearly been devastating for the Brookes family, and I would like to pay tribute to them, and particularly to Mr Brookes who contacted me to tell me their story. I would also like to pay tribute to the excellent coroner whose report helped, I think, to answer the Brookes family’s questions about the tragedy. I should say that I have spoken to the former and current chairmen of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, which administers the unit, and I understand that work is ongoing to learn and act on the lessons of this case.

As a result of the case being raised with me, I began to wonder how many other patients absconded each year from units run by our mental health trusts. I submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to all 58 of the mental health trusts in England, 57 of which have replied. The figures make grim reading. Before I go into them, however, I should say that this exercise has shown me that there is a real variety in the quality of record keeping at the trusts. There also seems to be a real difference in the way in which the term “abscond” is used by the trusts as a basis for recording the relevant information. I hope that the Minister and the Department will be able to help with this matter.

The Mental Health Act 1983 defines “abscond” as when a patient who is liable to be detained under the Act

(a) absents himself from the hospital without leave granted under section 17 above; or

(b) fails to return to the hospital on any occasion on which, or at the expiration of any period for which, leave of absence was granted to him…; or

(c) absents himself without permission from any place where he is required to reside in accordance with conditions imposed on the grant of leave of absence”.

In responding to my request for information, some trusts used this definition, while others made the distinction between a patient who was “absent without leave”, “absent without explanation”, “missing” or escaped. In addition, some trusts use the terms “AWOL” and “abscond” interchangeably without definition or explanation. Other trusts used only “abscond”, but did not define what they meant by the term. Finally, some trusts provided the number of “incidents” of absconding, rather than the number of patients. Others did not make that distinction. For simplicity, however, the figures that I will now mention refer to the total number given for the five-year period that I asked about, and therefore do not differentiate the different types of absconding incident.

My research showed that in the past five years about 40,500 incidents of absconding occurred, ranging from a total of three reported incidents for Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Partnership Trust to 3,891 for Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust. There is significant variation across the country, so clearly some trusts are doing things very differently from others. In the case of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, the total figure for the past five years is 386. I must stress caution in comparing those numbers. We could, in many cases, be comparing different things—although the overall effect of patients absconding is the same—simply because the trusts use their own definitions, despite the fact that the Department of Health has published its definitions of absconding and escaping.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I do not know where on my hon. Friend's list the Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust figures, but did she find any correlation between the quality of the infrastructure of the units and the numbers of people absconding? Did she find, for example, that a brand-new unit, such as Woodhaven in my constituency, tended to have a lower rate of such problems? This is of particular interest to me, as that eight-year-old hospital is threatened with closure, and I have a debate on it later this week.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have seen the subject of his Adjournment debate later this week. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to go into that level of detail, but I shall come to the quality of care and to demonstrate that it has a huge impact on the absconding rate for patients. As I shall come on to mention, this is an issue on which the Department of Health and the trusts could work together. Interested Members or other interested parties should see the link between absconding and the quality of care given. There is no doubt that there are innovative ways of ensuring that patients do not feel the need to abscond, and that if they are outside the environment, of ensuring that they will come back because they know that they will receive therapeutic treatment.

As I was saying, despite all the caveats, the numbers are simply too high for organisations that owe their patients a duty of care. The fifth agreed objective in the Government’s mental health strategy launched earlier this year stated:

“Fewer people will suffer avoidable harm—people receiving care and support should have confidence that the services they use are of the highest quality and at least as safe as any other public service.”

This is, of course, an objective that anyone who has an interest in any health service, but particularly mental health services, would want to see met. The fact is that guidance is already in place for mental health trusts and for those working within them to follow, although it would be fair to say that a lot of that guidance deals with how to react to an incident of absconding rather than offering concrete guidance on prevention. In the case of my constituent, the coroner expressly found that

“it would appear that the hospital had a system and policies in place to protect and supervise Kirsty from harm but at all material times those caring for her did not follow those policies.”

That is just not acceptable.

The Minister will remember the long sessions earlier this year discussing the Health and Social Care Bill in Committee Room 10 upstairs—how could we forget them? One of the recurring themes was not just that we all want to see high-quality services but how we ensure our health and social care services are of high quality and that everyone is focused on the primary objectives of the health system. Do we do so through inspections? Do we hope that everyone working within the health system works to their own high standards, as many thousands of employees surely do? Do we ensure that guidance is not only available but followed? And do we ensure that when things go wrong, as in the case of my constituent, thorough investigations follow and lessons are learned? Surely it must be a combination of all those things.

As I mentioned, hospital wards are meant to be places of therapy, but too often, especially in the case of mental health wards, they are anything but. In a recent report, the Centre for Social Justice said:

“Hospitals tend to be untherapeutic and dangerous places”.

In helping me to prepare for this debate, Mind sent me a note saying:

“The quality of care quite clearly has an impact on a patient’s decision to abscond. Unfortunately, as Mind’s forthcoming acute and crisis care campaign will show, people in inpatient settings often experience substandard quality, with no meaningful activities, little or no interaction with staff or each other, and at worst, lack of safety, abuse and coercive treatment.”

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem—she has done well in bringing this debate before us this evening—is the fact that people often become labelled when they are in a mental health care setting, whereas what we need to do if we are to deal with the issue properly is to break down and challenge those labels, so that the patient is not seen just as a mental health patient but as a person? All the therapies and preventive measures she is talking about relate to that issue. If we can get that right, we will be able to look at people and treat them in the way that they deserve—with respect, which will help to prevent the episodes of absconding or escape that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is a qualified NHS practitioner and knows far more about these matters than I do. Everything that he has said confirms the fact that we must not forget that people are at the heart of all cases of this kind—not just patients, but their families. The sooner patients receive good therapeutic treatments and can resume their place in society, the better. My hon. Friend made another important point: for too long a stigma has been attached to mental ill-health conditions, and people do not talk about them. I hope that tonight’s debate will mark the beginning of more open discussion of such conditions, in the House and beyond.

Kirsty's father told me that he believed that there was nothing to do at the unit where she was being treated. He said that there were no constructive therapies.

Rethink Mental Illness and the Royal College of Psychiatrists drew my attention to a 2010 report that had been prepared as part of the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness. According to the report, between 1997 and 2006 absconders accounted for 25% of all in-patient suicides and 38% of suicides that occurred off the wards. Absconding patients were also significantly more likely to have been under high levels of observation, but clinicians reported more problems in the observation of those who had absconded owing to ward design or other patients in the ward. The report made three recommendations for improvement: that staff need to pay better attention, not just to patients but to ward exits; that observation methods should improve, as there was little evidence regarding the protective effect of close observation, and high levels of observation may be ineffective for people who are intent on leaving the ward; and that there should be an increased focus on engagement and support by staff when patients are admitted.

However, as Mind pointed out to me, there is evidence that when wards take a more innovative approach to in-patient care, there are fewer incidences of both aggression and absconding. There is already an incentive for our mental health trusts to do better in terms of the treatment and care that they offer to in-patients.

Let me end by drawing all those thoughts together. First, we need more research in order to understand the scale of the problem. The information that I have obtained is, I hope, a good start, but I think that the Department could insist that trusts use one set of definitions so that numbers can be properly compared, and that trusts with low incidences of absconding could share their experiences with those whose absconding rate is very much higher. The Department could also insist on publication of the information that I had to obtain under the Freedom of Information Act.

Secondly, trusts should not only follow existing guidance, but work out how they do their best to prevent patients, when they are at their most vulnerable, from absconding and causing harm to themselves. My office did not have to look very far to find seven newspaper reports about patients who had absconded this year. Six of those cases tragically ended with the patients taking their own lives, and in one case the patient killed someone else. I believe that only by encouraging trusts to take those steps will the Department stand a chance of fulfilling the fifth objective in its laudable mental health strategy.

Finally, I should like us all to remember that at the heart of this are usually very ill people and their families. Mr Brookes said to me in July this year, “We trusted the system. We paid our taxes, and we expected the best care for those who are at their most vulnerable.”

We talk a lot in the House of Commons about physical health outcomes, but the time has come for mental health to get a proper look in. As someone speaking at one of the all-party meetings on mental health said, “We all have mental health; it is just that some people’s is better than that of others.”

We are talking about people, so there are no absolutes, and there will always be those who are determined to take their own lives, but I hope that tonight, by focusing on one part of the mental health system—the security of patients being treated in hospital settings—the House can begin to make clear its desire to see real parity between physical and mental health conditions in the context of funding and treatment. I believe that if we do not do that, we will be storing up huge trouble for the country, and there will be more tragic deaths of patients like Kirsty which could perhaps be prevented.

22:23

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing the debate, and on the thoughtful way in which she set out her case. Let me begin my speech where she ended hers. The coalition Government are totally committed to securing parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Quite simply, that is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue. We are determined for it to happen as part of the strategy that we are currently delivering and the changes currently taking place.

I am well aware of the tragic incident to which the hon. Lady referred, and which was undoubtedly the spur for the debate. I also thank her for sharing the coroner’s report with me. I am keenly aware of the fact that the trust involved in this sad case fully accepts the coroner’s verdict and has undertaken an overhaul of its patient security arrangements. It is important for public confidence in the system that lessons are learned and actions are taken to improve patient safety and service quality.

The coalition Government are committed to patient safety. It is a high priority in our strategies and in the outcomes on which we are judging the NHS. Our cross-Government mental health strategy, “No health without mental health”, includes two core objectives to which I wish to draw attention: ensuring that people who are acutely ill receive safe, high-quality care in an appropriate environment, and thereby ensuring that fewer people suffer avoidable harm. The NHS outcomes framework also prioritises patient safety and emphasises treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the invaluable work done by the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness. Although the suicides rates in England have been at a historical low and are much lower than those of most of our European neighbours, the most recent figures, dating back to 2009, show that there are still about 4,400 suicides in England; that is one suicide every two hours.

Over the past decade, good progress has been made in reducing the suicide rate in England. However, there has been a slight rise in the last couple of years. It is therefore important that we maintain vigilance. We know from experience that suicide rates can be volatile as new risks emerge. That is why we recently completed a national consultation on our suicide prevention strategy. We are considering the responses received, and intend to publish the final strategy next year.

The draft strategy aimed to set out a broad and coherent approach to suicide prevention and to helping us sustain, and reduce further, the relatively low rates of suicide in England. In particular, it sets out to reduce the suicide rate in the general population and to provide better support and information to those bereaved or otherwise affected by a suicide.

Substantial improvements have already been made in in-patient services. The most recent national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide was published in July 2011. It shows that the long-term downward trend in in-patient suicides continues. In 1997 there were 214 in-patient suicides, falling to 94 by 2008. That is still 94 too many, so there is still more to be done.

I applaud my hon. Friend on her initiative in gathering the statistics she has presented to the House. However, she is right to sound a note of caution about how the figures might be interpreted, and what they reveal to us. For example, information about the length of time for which patients are missing or the level of risk that they pose either to themselves or to other people is relevant to gauging the true scale of the problem on which she seeks to persuade the Government to take action.

There are a wide variety of reasons for recorded unauthorised absences. These include situations that pose minimum risk to the patient or the public, such as a delay in return to hospital from authorised leave because of a missed or delayed bus. We could be talking about a delay of no more than a couple of hours before some patients return safely to their unit. However, that return has to be recorded, even if it is for just a matter of a couple of hours.

Recent statistics from the confidential inquiry show that between 2004 and 2008 the number of suicides per year by patients who have absconded from mental health services has dropped by more than 50%, from 50 cases to 21 cases per year. That is a substantial improvement, but it is still 21 cases too many.

That is why we are not complacent. We know that a significant number of suicides still occur during a period of in-patient care in spite of the improvements. Managing risk effectively is therefore essential, and the confidential inquiry collects and analyses the detailed clinical information on all suicides and homicides committed by someone with mental illness, and more latterly also on sudden and unexplained deaths of psychiatric in-patients. It also makes recommendations for improvements, which goes to the heart of my hon. Friend’s representations tonight. Its December 2006 report sets out some compelling statistics—for example, that 27% of in-patient suicides occurred after the patient left the ward without permission. Those deaths were clustered in the first seven days after an admission.

In mental health services, respect for the patient’s wishes must at all times be balanced with the concern for the individual’s safety and well-being. There is no doubt that that balancing act can, and does at times, present significant challenges for services. However, the solution to the problem does not have to be heavy-handed or coercive in its approach. A significant body of research, guidance and best practice has demonstrated practical strategies that can be implemented and can help to reduce significantly the number of people going missing. Such strategies include: early assessment; ensuring that staff begin to form a meaningful, therapeutic and collaborative relationship with patients straight away; understanding the factors that trigger a decision to leave the ward, such as a disturbed environment or an incident affecting the patient; recognising that patients will have social responsibilities such as paying bills or ensuring that their property is secure—staff need to identify these issues early to prevent anxiety and stress that may lead to the patient choosing to leave—and making greater use of technology, such as CCTV or swipe cards, to observe and control ward entry and exit.

Key to the successful delivery of those approaches will be the ongoing development of an acute specialist work force with the right skills and attitudes, and a culture of inquiry and service improvement based on evidence and regular service user and carer feedback. The law is clear in the obligations it places on services. The Mental Health Act 1983, to which my hon. Friend referred, sets out the legal provisions relating to keeping patients in legal custody and bringing them back if they abscond. The Mental Health Act code of practice is equally explicit in the guidance it gives to services about the systems and processes that should be in place to safeguard detained patients. Hospital managers should ensure that there is a clear written policy about the action to be taken when a detained patient, or a patient on a supervised community treatment order, goes missing. These policies should, in turn, be agreed with other agencies, such as the police and ambulance services, which have significant roles to play in safeguarding patients who are absent without leave.

Just last year, it was confirmed for the first time that the detaining authorities would be required by statutory regulation to notify the Care Quality Commission, without delay, of any absence without leave of any person detained or liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act. A failure to take adequate measures to keep a detained patient safe from fatal harm is potentially a breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The CQC asks services that are designated as low, medium or high security, and psychiatric intensive care units, to notify it of all incidences of absence without leave. There are different reporting requirements depending on the security level of the service. I can tell my hon. Friend and others who are listening to this evening’s debate that the CQC will be reporting its first round of these statistics next month. The CQC monitors trends in absence without leave and has followed up with the particular providers in relation to specific incidents or patterns of absences. The CQC recommends that providers monitor and review absences without leave to understand why patients go absent and to help develop strategies to address these identified issues.

My hon. Friend identified concerns about what she described as the variation that she encountered in the definitions that appeared to be being used by different trusts when she undertook her freedom of information requests. I can, however, assure her that the definitions of “escape”, “attempted escape”, “abscond”, “failure to return” and “absent without leave” are applied consistently in mental health services. Indeed, most of those definitions relate to the three-part description that she listed. I suspect that the differences in the returns she received are due to the mixture in the type and size of mental health services within one trust, and therefore the mixture of type and number of absences reported. For instance, a trust may include a high-secure hospital, two medium-secure units and also low-secure and non-secure mental health services. The numbers from that trust may give us no understanding of the type of risk of the absences recorded. That is why my hon. Friend is right to say that we need good data collection in this area, and that is why we have asked the CQC to collect those data in such a way that we can meaningfully segment them to understand what is going on. I shall write to her about the statistics that she has collected.

The Government believe that people with acute mental health needs have a right to receive the care and support they need in a safe and comfortable environment in which they are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. As my hon. Friend has said, there is a cross-Government mental health programme in place to drive whole system and cultural change in mental health services. However, this cannot and should not be seen as solely the Government’s responsibility. The essential building blocks are in place but, as always, the responsibility for the quality and safety of front-line care crucially depends on three things. First, providers have a duty of care to each individual for whom they are responsible—ensuring that services meet individual needs and that there are systems in place to make sure that services are effective, efficient and deliver high-quality care. Secondly, the regulator is responsible for assuring the quality of the system itself. Thirdly, the commissioners are responsible for securing the care that meets people’s needs.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to bring this important debate before the House, and she was also right to point out that we often debate issues of physical health in the House but rarely debate mental health issues except in extremis. I assure her that the Government are determined to invest in mental health services to ensure that more therapies and therapeutic services are available. Indeed, that is why we are investing in talking therapy services. It is important that with mental health we look at the whole-life course, intervene earlier to provide more preventive services, and invest in services that deliver dignified outcomes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and allowing us to shed some light on those important issues.

Question put and agreed to.

22:36

House adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

Monday 7 November 2011

Bankruptcy and Company Winding Up

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

We are today launching a consultation about bankruptcy and company winding up.

The consultation document sets out detailed proposals to reform the application process for bankruptcy and compulsory winding up by replacing the current court route with a new administrative process. Uncontested applications would be determined by an adjudicator and the court would only be involved at the application stage to the extent that there is a dispute that can only be resolved by judicial intervention. I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

We propose allowing electronic applications to be made to an adjudicator, who will be a person appointed for that purpose by the Secretary of State and whose office would be within the Insolvency Service. Debtors who want to apply for bankruptcy for themselves would have the choice of submitting electronic or paper applications, and the option of making the requisite payment to enter the process by instalments. Where creditors are looking to instigate proceedings, a new mandatory pre-action process would incentivise debtors and creditors to communicate with each other and thereby reach a mutually satisfactory solution to the debt problem without recourse to a bankruptcy or winding-up application. This reflects our desire that people are empowered to make the right decisions for themselves about their finances, as set out in the Government response to the call for evidence about personal insolvency.

Litigation can be costly and time consuming. This new process should therefore deliver a more efficient service as well as saving valuable public and private resources. In order to ensure that the interests of both debtors and creditors are protected, the court would still have an important role. Not only would it decide the outcome of disputes, but certain petitions for the winding up of companies, such as those based on public interest grounds, would continue to be determined by the courts.

We intend actively to engage with interested parties throughout the consultation period, and welcome views on whether the proposals will deliver a workable and efficient application process for bankruptcy and most compulsory windings up. The consultation will close on 31 January 2012.

ECOFIN

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 8 November 2011. The Chancellor will attend. The following items will be discussed:

Financial Transaction Taxes (FTTs)

The Commission will present its proposal on FTTs and ask for preliminary comments from member states. The tax would be levied on all transactions in financial instruments by financial institutions when at least one party to the transaction is located in the EU. Trading in shares, bonds and money market instruments would be taxed at a rate of 0.1% and derivative contracts at a rate of 0.01% on the notional value of the transaction. The Government do not support the Commission’s proposal; as it stands, it would have significant negative impacts on jobs and growth. I will continue to make clear that, to avoid relocation of trading, any FTT would need to apply in all financial centres (that is, not just the EU).

Energy Taxation Directive (ETD)

Depending on progress at officials’ level, Finance Ministers will hold an orientation debate on the ETD. The Commission published its proposal on this issue in April. Its stated aim is to bring EU rules on the taxation of energy products further into line with the EU’s energy and climate change objectives. The proposal would require member states to tax energy products by taking into account both CO₂ emissions and energy content. The Government believe that revision of the ETD should focus on reviewing EU minimum levels of taxation, and do not support a mandatory EU-level carbon tax. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, member states should also retain the absolute right to set national duty rates on different types of energy products, as long as these are above EU-wide minimum rates of taxation. The presidency has drafted “orientations” to guide future work on the file, which are in line with the Government’s priorities in this area.

Follow-up to the October European Council, 23 October

ECOFIN will discuss the outcomes of the European Council, where leaders discussed the immediate challenges posed by the financial crisis, and agreed on measures to secure sustainable and job-creating growth. They also set the EU’s position for the G20 summit, giving top priority to maintaining financial stability and restoring growth, and discussed preparations for the Durban conference on climate change.

Follow-up to the G20 summit, 3-4 November in Cannes

The presidency will report on the G20 leaders’ summit held in Cannes on 3-4 November. The Council will discuss the outcomes from the summit, including: the

global economy and international monetary system; financial regulation; energy commodities and agriculture; and development. The session is also expected to look ahead to the Mexican presidency of the G20 in 2012, including where additional work is required in the G20 and EU to make further progress.

Financial assistance to Greece—disbursement of next instalment

Given the current situation in Greece, it is unlikely that this will remain on the ECOFIN agenda. After the referendum announcement, euro area countries and the IMF made clear they would not disburse the next instalment of the Greek financial assistance programme, which euro area countries had informally agreed to disburse on 26 October. While the referendum now seems to be off the table, the situation in Greece is still fluid, and euro area countries might want to hold off disbursement until Greece is able to commit to the second financial assistance programme also agreed on 26 October. The UK Government will not be part of any decision on the disbursement. However, it is extremely important for the euro area to implement the comprehensive package agreed on 26 October, and that the other elements are not delayed as a consequence of the situation in Greece.

Economic governance—surveillance of macro-economic imbalances: design of the “scoreboard”

The Council will discuss draft Council conclusions on a scoreboard for assessing macro-economic imbalances. The scoreboard will be a new monitoring mechanism under the excessive imbalances procedure, and a key part of a more effective European semester. The Government support measures designed to help restore and maintain macro-economic stability in the EU.

Preparation of the 17th Conference of Parties (COP-17) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa

ECOFIN will discuss draft climate finance conclusions which endorse the EU’s “fast start finance report” setting out the EU’s contributions in 2011. The conclusions will also consider the report to the G20 on long-term sources of finance, which was led by the World Bank. The Government support the further development of the EU’s position in advance of the UNFCCC negotiations in Durban.

Annual Meeting of EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Economy and Finance Ministers

This meeting will take place over breakfast, before the formal ECOFIN begins. It will focus on improving regulation in order to secure financial stability, where the Government’s priority is to have robust, internationally consistent regulatory standards that will benefit the economy in the long run. It will also be an opportunity to exchange views on respective strategies in the current macro-economic environment in Europe, where the Government believe the priority is to achieve fiscal consolidation and lay the foundations for growth.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

On Thursday 20 October I represented the UK on agricultural issues at the first day of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and food. On Friday 21 October my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister with responsibility for natural environment and fisheries, the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) represented the United Kingdom on the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM were also in attendance.

The main item on Thursday was a Commission presentation of the seven proposals which make up the package for reform of the common agricultural policy from 2014. Commissioner Ciolos began by stating that sustainable competitiveness, linked to food security, was at the heart of the proposals before going on to say that greater convergence of payment rates within and between member states was necessary. He stated that direct payments should be made up of basic income support (70%), with the remaining 30% available only if farmers met certain environmental or “greening” conditions. Commissioner Ciolos went on to underline his belief that the first pillar of the CAP should apply in a uniform manner across all member states, with the second pillar offering member states flexibility to respond to national priority needs.

Two full table rounds followed giving member states a first opportunity to offer views on the package. Views varied widely with no unconditional support for the package but the UK made it clear that the proposals represented a missed opportunity, doing nothing to move EU farmers towards a situation in which they could be competitive without direct payments. As tabled, the proposals risked rewarding farmers for normal good practice or, worse, preventing them from making the right decisions for sustainability.

On the detail of the proposals, some themes emerged during the two discussions. On convergence of direct payments, a number of member states had serious misgivings about redistribution of funding between member states with some expressing the view that proposals went too far while others believed it did not go far enough, while the UK, with the support of a number of other member states, repeated opposition to the capping of direct payments.

Proposals for the “greening” of pillar 1 received some support in principle, but the majority of member states questioned the rigid, one-size-fits-all system proposed which appeared to deliver more red tape than actual environmental benefit. This debate led to a discussion of the broader issue of simplification. Member states were of the view that the Commission had promised simplification, but that the package as a whole, with a multi-layered direct payment scheme consisting of various mandatory elements, would increase the burden for both farmers and national administrations.

Few member states had fundamental problems with the proposals on rural development, though all were clearly interested in the allocation criteria for pillar 2 payments for which the UK called for a faster move to objective allocation criteria.

In conclusion to the debate, Commissioner Ciolos stated that, in his view, the proposals had received broad support as the basis for future discussion but that he realised the allocation of payments would be the most contentious issue and that further work was needed. However, he rejected arguments that the package did not deliver simplification for producers and would be writing to Ministers outlining how his package delivered in this area.

Also on the agenda was a discussion of the food for deprived persons scheme. The presidency and Commission together urged the blocking minority of six member states (Germany, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and Czech Republic) to reconsider their positions and agree to the revised proposal. A number of member states, led by France, intervened to express their frustration that this dossier was being blocked. The presidency then asked members of the blocking minority to confirm that they still opposed the revised proposals. All did, and the UK commented that the revised legal base only confirmed that this was a social scheme for action at a national rather than EU level.

The final agriculture item for discussion on the substantive agenda related to the achieving of an EU common position on four draft resolutions of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV). The UK remained silent as it is not a member of the OIV and the presidency noted that there remained a blocking majority against adoption of the resolutions.

Under any other business Council heard an update from Commissioner Dalli on implementation of the laying hens directive, which comes into force on 1 January 2013. The Commission was clear that there would be no postponement of the ban on battery cages even though at least 11 member states were unlikely to have complied with the directive by the start of next year. The Commission said it would exercise powers, beginning targeted inspection visits at the start of 2013, and would begin legal proceedings against non-compliant member states. While there was an argument that non-compliant eggs should be destroyed, this would not make political or economic sense. Instead, the use of non-compliant eggs would be limited to production of egg products within the member state of origin. There was no opportunity for member states to intervene.

The second day of Council saw consideration of two fisheries agenda items. The first related to 2012 fishing opportunities in the Baltic sea. The Commission stressed the need for a cautious approach, particularly for stocks where there was no scientific advice; and the need to respect existing scientific advice and management plans where relevant. The aim should be to reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels for all stocks. Member states challenged the Commission’s generic approach of proposing cuts of 25% or 15% for stocks for which there was insufficient advice (“data poor”) and pushed back against the Commission’s ambition to reach MSY sooner than the internationally agreed date of 2015, where possible. The Commission agreed to treat data-poor stocks on a case-by-case basis; an important shift for forthcoming fishing opportunities negotiations of interest to the UK and other fishing member states.

After extensive bilateral discussions and a compromise proposal from the presidency, the Commission was pressed in a final negotiating session to offer reduced decreases across most stocks.

The final fisheries item related to the EU-Norway fisheries agreement for 2012. Ministers had an exchange of views to orientate the Commission’s approach to this forthcoming set of negotiations governing stocks jointly managed by the EU and Norway, and the exchange of fishing opportunities. The UK is the member state with the largest fishing interest in the agreement.

The Commission noted the importance of reaching a balanced agreement on behalf of the EU as a whole and that member states had to be realistic in what they felt should be offered to Norway to secure access to the Arctic cod allocation offered. On this issue the UK said Norway should be pressed to use external waters stocks, while other member states pressed for maximum Arctic cod uptake and stressed the importance of an EU-Faroes agreement. The UK also stressed the importance of ensuring Iceland and the Faroes behaved responsibly and reached a reasonable agreement on mackerel as well as the extension of the “catch quota” scheme which has been shown to reduce discards.

Strengthening Women's Voices in Government

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

The “Strengthening Women’s Voices in Government” consultation exercise was undertaken between 7 March and 15 June 2011. The consultation set out proposals for a new approach to engaging and listening to women, and invited views and feedback on the proposals.

The consultation set out the principles for the new approach, which are:

Women across the UK can be heard and are enabled to influence and shape Government policy;

The new approach must be genuinely cross-Government and Departments are committed to listening to women, taking their views into account, and feeding back the results, and

Women know what central Government are doing across the breadth of policies and are able to act on that knowledge.

The new approach should transform the way in which women’s voices are brought to Government, delivering an engagement framework which is direct, inclusive and transparent.

A total of 1,229 responses were received, of which 1,166 were from people responding online, with the remaining 63 being submitted as a written response. An estimated 600 people attended consultative events and fed back their views about the proposals.

The consultation asked for views on the most important or challenging issues facing women in the UK today. The top priorities identified were:

Issues relating to the workplace, and women’s experience of work including promotion; better work-life balance; child care and setting up a business.

Tackling violence against women and girls;

A strong appetite for greater equality for women;

Access to leadership positions, both in politics and business;

More engagement with women, including with senior women in business/women entrepreneurs.

Moving forward, we will consider a cross-Government programme of action and encourage participation from a wide and diverse range of women and women’s organisations.

A copy of the consultation response is available in the Library of the House.

Immigration Rules

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The changes in the immigration rules being laid before the House today are as a result of the Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC45.

On 12 October 2011, the Supreme Court found that while it recognised that the Secretary of State was pursuing a legitimate and rational aim of seeking to address forced marriage, a rule (increasing the minimum marriage visa age from 18 to 21) disproportionately interfered with the article 8 rights of those who were in genuine marriages. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to revert to a minimum age of 18.

The changes will take effect on 28 November and will reduce the minimum age at which a person may be granted entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a sponsor, and the minimum age at which a person may sponsor such an application, from 21 to 18 years. It will also delete references to a minimum age of 18 for entry clearance or leave as the spouse, civil partner, fiancé(e), proposed civil partner, unmarried or same-sex partner of a HM forces sponsor, and the minimum age at which a member of HM forces may sponsor such an application. Guidance for those affected by the judgment will be published on the UK Border Agency website.

There is no place in British society for the practice of forced marriage. It is a breach of human rights and a form of violence against the victims. That is why the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will criminalise the breach of Forced Marriage Civil Protection Orders and that there will be a consultation on making forcing someone to marry an offence in its own right.

We are also investigating what more we can do to identify and protect those young people who have been placed at additional risk.

Renewable Energy Directive

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Today I am publishing our response to the comments received in the consultation on our proposals for implementing the transport aspects of the renewable energy directive (RED), confirming action we will take to implement this directive in the UK.

The RED requires the UK to source 10% of energy used in transport from renewable sources by 2020 and is closely related to the fuel quality directive (FQD) which requires fuel suppliers to land-based transport and similar applications to deliver a 6% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from their fuels by 2020.

Our policy on biofuels is relevant to both directives. There remain a number of uncertainties regarding the sustainability of biofuels and their best use. However, I do believe that genuinely sustainable biofuels have an important role to play in our efforts to tackle climate change and in security of energy supply. This is particularly so in areas where there is no viable alternative fuel on the horizon such as for HGVs and aviation.

It is crucial that we do all we can to ensure that biofuels both deliver real greenhouse gas emission reductions and do not cause unacceptable environmental and social side effects in the process. There is much work being undertaken, nationally and internationally, to understand better the indirect effects related to biofuels and to investigate how the negative indirect effects can be reduced.

As the directives currently stand, they do not take into account these indirect effects. While the extent of these impacts remains uncertain, there is robust evidence that widespread use of some biofuels can lead to significant indirect greenhouse gas emissions through the process known as indirect land use change (ILUC). The UK takes the issue of ILUC seriously. Earlier this year we published research on the scale of ILUC impacts and we are continuing to lead work on how to tackle these as well as encouraging the European Commission to address this issue on a Europe-wide scale with a robust solution. I have written to the European Commission twice, expressing the Government’s concerns regarding ILUC and pressing for robust and proportionate action to be taken to address the impacts of ILUC.

There are concerns regarding the best use and deployment of biofuels. These concerns also extend to the issue of best use of biomass across all sectors. Since our consultations on the RED and FQD opened, the Committee on Climate Change has published advice on renewable energy. The Government are now considering this advice and awaiting the Committee’s further advice on the best use of bioenergy across all sectors. Further evidence will also be drawn from the results of the Department’s research into the best use of biofuels across transport modes and the Department’s call for evidence on the future of aviation policy: “Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation: Scoping document”.¹ In addition, the Government are working in a cross-departmental way to develop a bioenergy strategy which will look at the use of sustainable bioenergy across transport, heat and power as well as the impacts on other sectors.

The results of these reports and studies will establish a robust evidence base. When we have this evidence we will set biofuel targets beyond those set out to 2014 under the current Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).

On the other hand, in response to those who have called for biofuel targets to be scrapped entirely, we continue to be of the view that there is a place for sustainable biofuels in our wider policy on carbon reduction. The UK must, in law, comply with the RED. Biofuels will be a key component in the achievement of these targets before that work has been completed.

We will prioritise implementation of the RED over that of the related FQD in order to ensure that financial reward is no longer given to those biofuels that do not meet the RED sustainability criteria. Most of what will be delivered through the FQD will be delivered by the closely related RED, which we expect to be implemented through an amended renewable transport fuel obligation in December 2011, subject to the parliamentary process.

Our consultations on proposals to implement the RED and FQD revealed a number of concerns regarding expansion of the RTFO to include fuels use in non-road mobile machinery (NRMM). Industry has requested additional time to prepare for this and we are considering how best to achieve this change. As such, we do not propose to bring into force any expansion of the RTFO to include NRMM fuels before April 2013.

In addition there remains uncertainty regarding key implementing measures for the FQD, which are currently being discussed at the European level.

However, we do intend to introduce new regulations to transpose the FQD requirement to reduce emissions by 6% by 2020, alongside new annual reporting requirements for fossil fuels and biofuels. We will be working towards putting the necessary legislation in place as soon as possible during the course of 2012.

The response published today sets out our decision to transpose fully all the sustainability criteria set out in the RED to ensure that the UK only rewards the supply of sustainable biofuel. Until we have a more robust evidence base, we cannot confidently set biofuel targets beyond those established under the current RTFO.

I would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to these consultations.

¹ http://www2.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-09/ consultationdocument.pdf

Infrastructure

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Together with my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Transport, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I am today announcing details about the operation of the Government’s £500 million Growing Places Fund.

The fund will be available to get stalled sites for housing development moving again; provide additional funding for infrastructure projects already in the pipeline; and promote wider economic growth.

Local areas will be in the driving seat, with funding directed to local enterprise partnerships, which will bring private sector expertise to the prioritisation and delivery of significant infrastructure projects.

We are publishing a short prospectus today which sets out the key features of our approach and invites expressions of interest for funding from local enterprise partnerships. We are inviting these by 20 December, with the intention of announcing allocations in January. A copy of the prospectus will be placed in the Library of the House, and will also be available on my Department’s website.

The fund will be a major boost to local areas in unlocking the potential for development and we will advise further as we take decisions on allocations.

Pension Protection System (Administration Levies)

Monday 7th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The administrative resource costs of the Pensions Advisory Service and the pensions ombudsman and some of the administrative resource costs of the pensions regulator are recovered by a general levy on pension schemes. The administration costs for the Pension Protection Fund are recovered through the PPF administration levy paid by eligible schemes. The rates for both levies are set in regulations and reviewed annually.

I am pleased to announce that for 2012-13 we are proposing that the rates for both the PPF administration levy and the general levy will be reduced from the levels that have remained unchanged since 2008-9. We propose that the PPF administration levy rates will reduce by at least 25%, and the general levy rates will reduce by at least 12%.

Levy rates in-year are set to avoid frequent changes and do not directly reflect forecast future costs, but also take into account accumulated deficits or surpluses in expected levy collection.

The proposed new rates for both levies meet forecast future administration costs for the respective pensions bodies. In proposing to reduce the rates, the Government are seeking to lessen cost pressures on pension schemes. This proposed reduction will be welcomed by levy payers, as well as pension scheme trustees, members and sponsoring employers.

House of Lords

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 7 November 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Death of a Member: Lord Gould of Brookwood

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

My Lords, it is with deep regret that I have to inform the House of the death yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Gould of Brookwood. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

Benefits: EU Nationals

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked By

[Lord Empey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to change the rules under which citizens of other European Union member states have access to the United Kingdom benefits system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, we do not propose to change the way DWP determines benefit entitlement for EU nationals, but we are considering the details of a European Commission reasoned opinion against the right to reside test. While we accept our responsibility in supporting EU nationals who work and contribute here, it is absolutely necessary that we protect our welfare system from those who come here with no intention of working or looking for work.

[Lord Empey]

I fully understand the point the Minister makes but it is nevertheless a fact that on 29 September 2011 a reasoned opinion was issued which states that the EU Commission believes that we are contravening EU law. What steps do the Government intend to take in order to protect our system from additional and currently unaffordable demands?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are moving in two directions. First, we are looking hard at the Commission’s opinion and considering whether we should go to court. We have two months in which to take that decision and the likelihood is that we will take it through the full legal process. The second area is the political one. We are talking to other countries which are also deeply disturbed about this. Some 13 countries have signed a motion calling for a minute statement and for a policy debate on this matter.

[Lord German]

My Lords since some 900,000 UK citizens are migrants in other European Union countries, I am sure my noble friend the Minister would like to protect the reciprocity which exists for both EU citizens and others coming here, as well as our citizens in other countries. Will he comment on the information we have received from the European Commission about the intention to extend reciprocity to North African countries? Can he tell us what line he will take with the European Commission on this matter?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are going to take a pretty robust line on this matter. We have an opt-out from the Lisbon treaty which we have been using for African nationals where there are third-country agreements, in particular Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Again, currently we have legal differences with the Commission on this matter, which is looking for ways to get around our opt-out, but we are determined that we will retain it.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the uprating arrangements are for benefits that are exported? We are aware that by generally switching uprating to CPI, the Government are seeking to reduce the income mostly of poor people by some £10 billion a year in 2015-16. Will the Minister take this opportunity to denounce any suggestion that benefit uprating in the UK for upcoming years will not at least keep pace with CPI?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we have had this discussion during the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill and I have made it absolutely clear that I am not going to comment on that particular question in any way.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the fact that EU law requires equal treatment between citizens of member states, but not within member states? So we have the absurd position in Scotland, for example, where English, Welsh and Irish residents have to pay university fees of £36,000 while for Scottish students, along with French, German, Italian and other European students, they are free. Is that not grossly unfair and should not the law be changed so that residents in other parts of the United Kingdom are treated in the same way as EU citizens?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am being taken well off my brief which is concerned with benefits, so I will not comment on that question either.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, the issue of reciprocity was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German. Have the Government ever calculated the cost of reciprocity in terms of how much it costs the United Kingdom to pay benefits to EU nationals and what our 900,000 people get back?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, amazingly, we do not have those data, but that is clearly not the present Government’s problem as we are looking to get those data. Our concern is that, if we let in benefit tourists in the way the Commission is looking for us to do, the costs of doing that could be up to £2.5 billion a year. Noble Lords will be absolutely aware that we have many better ways of spending that money on people who are in this country and who have been making a contribution to this country.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When are the Government going to comment on the uprating? A lot of people out there in the country will want to know.

[Lord Freud]

I have already made my position on that absolutely clear.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, everybody has sympathy with a Minister when they are taken off brief, but does the Minister understand that, in this House, he answers not just for his department but for the Government? I think we would all be grateful if he would undertake to give the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, an answer, perhaps in written form at a later date. Is the Minister aware that he is accountable to this House and that, when he is asked a question which is reasonable, it is not up to him to say that he is just not going to answer it?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my responsibility is to answer questions in this particular area, which I am very happy to do. If noble Lords have a question in this area, I will be delighted to answer it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

In this particular area, the Minister still has not answered the question put by two of my colleagues. They did not ask whether benefits are going to be uprated by 5.2 per cent, as they should be, but when the Government are going to tell us. It is the time that we want to know; not a definitive statement now. Will he now answer that question?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be well aware, there is an autumn Statement where these things are declared. That is the answer.

BBC: Licence Fee

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked By

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to review the BBC licence fee.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, the Government have no immediate plans to review the cost of the BBC licence fee. Under the terms of the October 2010 current licence fee settlement, the Government are committed to providing a full financial settlement to the end of the year 2016-17. No new financial requirements or fresh obligations of any kind will be placed on the BBC and/or licence fee revenues in this period except by mutual agreement.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is significant public concern today that a single media company should not have disproportionate influence? That is normally said about News International, but is it not the case that in national radio news and accompanying radio programmes such as the “World at One”, “Today” and “PM”, the BBC has an overwhelmingly strong position? Will the Government therefore give consideration for future policy on how outside competitors may be introduced, possibly by earmarking a small part of the licence fee for that purpose?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point, which I would expect from him with all his knowledge and consistent interest in broadcasting. The Question clearly addresses the next stage from his previous Question in your Lordships' House on the licence fee in October 2010. Following the phone hacking issue, he is right that plurality continues to be on the agenda. That needs to include all media and I understand his wish for more independent radio providers. Indeed, local commercial radio stations provide a wide range of national and local news—around 8 million minutes of news every year. We believe, too, that there are a number of ways of supporting such news provision and we will consider these in the forthcoming communications review.

[Lord Soley]

While diversity is important, does the Minister accept that the news broadcasting services of the BBC are truly remarkable and we have to protect them, not least because of the importance of the World Service? I worry when we talk about watering down the BBC's news service, which frankly is the oxygen of publicity that we need in a democracy.

[Baroness Rawlings]

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, is absolutely right. The BBC World Service is of paramount importance. The October 2010 licence fee settlement transferred funding of the BBC World Service from the Foreign Office to the BBC from 2014-15. The BBC Trust sets out the overall strategic direction of the BBC, including the World Service. The World Service will be funded from the licence fee from 2014. The transfer will increase the BBC's ability to make further economies to avoid duplication across the whole of the BBC.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister for the agreement in the funding of S4C to use licence fee revenue. That is a sensible and sensitive response to a battle that we have been fighting for a long time. But what revenue from the licence fee comes from the various nations of the UK? How much comes from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England? Secondly, could we have an assurance that no use of the revenue from the licence fee will in any way prevent the granting of concessionary television licences to those over a certain age?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My noble friend Lord Roberts asks an important question regarding fees, which obviously come from throughout the United Kingdom. The proposed S4C/BBC partnership arrangements are a success for Welsh language broadcasting. The arrangements make certain that S4C’s editorial and managerial independence will offer a reassuring level of financial security for the next five years. The partnership offers the stability and certainty that S4C needs so that it can go from strength to strength under the management of its new chairman and new chief executive.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, given that sound quality is an important part of the BBC’s service, could the Minister say whether there is a future for FM radio, in view of Ed Vaizey’s recent admission that there is “truth” in the criticism of the UK’s DAB system, which many listeners—and, indeed, other countries—now regard as inferior and outmoded?

[Baroness Rawlings]

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asks a very valid question. We are worried about the transfer. It worked with television but we are not sure yet what is going to happen with radio. However, the licence fee settlement stated that the BBC will commit to funding the rollout of the national DAB multiplexes. We trust and hope that this will work out properly.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, notwithstanding the BBC’s settlement, can the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention to revisit the licence fee to take account of developing technologies in the forthcoming communications Bill?

[Baroness Rawlings]

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, brings up a good point. The current BBC charter expires on 31 December 2016. The timing and scope of the next charter review are a matter for Ministers, but no decision has yet been taken. The last charter review began three years before the expiry of the previous charter, and the subject will no doubt be brought up during the meetings on the draft communications Bill.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, given that the BBC’s charter and fee require it to cover matters of public interest fairly, how do the Government react to the statistic that, over the past six years, the BBC has dedicated less than 0.04 per cent of its news and news-related coverage to the case for our withdrawal from the European Union, which case is supported by at least 50 per cent—and growing—of the British people?

[Baroness Rawlings]

It would surprise me if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, did not ask a European Union-related question. I do not have the statistics on the BBC’s coverage of our possible withdrawal from the EU, but no doubt the department will find them for me and I will send them to him.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, as the BBC is anxious to achieve economies, and as the BBC now knows what fees it will be charging licence fee payers over the coming years through to 2017, why does it send out reminders in February and March every year asking individuals to pay their licence fee when it could now say, “Please pay for five years at X amount”, which is probably less than the amount that people pay in one year to Sky? Why do we have annual chasing for fees when they could now be paid over several years?

[Baroness Rawlings]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, and I will take it back to the department to find out for him.

Hospitals and Care Homes: Hydration

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked By

[Baroness Greengross]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to implement a hydration policy in hospitals and care homes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, all providers of regulated activities, including hospitals and care homes, are required by law to have policies in place that protect people from the risks of dehydration. The Care Quality Commission can take action if these requirements are not being met. It is for health and social care providers to develop local hydration policies. There are a number of best practice resources available to help providers to do this.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, evidence has clearly demonstrated that adequate, and indeed good, hydration can lead to fewer falls, through less dizziness, less constipation, less renal and urinary tract problems, and can bring a host of other benefits, particularly among elderly people in hospitals and care homes. Could Her Majesty’s Government introduce firm guidelines on this for all key providers of care, whether in NHS hospitals or in care homes?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I think that mandating a blanket approach to hydration from the centre, as it were, will not have the effect that we want, which is to deliver the person-centred improvements that we all want to see. Having said that, I know that there have been some important developments. As I have just said, providers are now required by law to have policies in place that protect people in hospital, and the regulatory body charged with overseeing compliance—the CQC—has been equipped with tough powers of enforcement. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State instigated a whole succession of unannounced inspections of NHS trusts, and there are further ones on the way. We are also looking at changing the NHS constitution in relation to the issue of whistleblowing. So a lot is going on, but there is a limit to what central government can do. It is in the end up to staff and managers on the ground.

[Lord Naseby]

Is my noble friend confident that today’s nursing training understands and re-emphasises the great importance of having a hydration policy?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I asked my officials that very same question. I thank my noble friend. My advice is that all preregistration training for nurses contains instruction and information about hydration and how to make sure that people have enough to eat and drink while in a care setting.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, the Minister said that the CQC has enforcement powers. How long after a CQC inspection reveals abuse of vulnerable people is it required to take enforcement action?

[Earl Howe]

I think that my noble friend asked about the period of time after an inspection. The CQC has flexibility depending on what it finds. As my noble friend will know, there is a whole succession of increasingly strong measures that it can take, depending on the concern. It can mandate immediate action to be taken, and in those circumstances it will return, typically, for a further inspection within a fairly short space of time to ascertain whether the action has been carried out.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is not this hands-off attitude to dealing with this matter costing the health service a fortune on urinary tract infections?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to express concern about urinary tract infections. There is a programme of work designed to bear down on that, as there is for hospital-acquired infections generally. He is absolutely right to raise that concern, which has a direct bearing on the Question on the Order Paper and the need for proper hydration at all times.

[Baroness Fookes]

My Lords, could I suggest to my noble friend an experiment being done by a hospital that I know of—namely, that within 24 hours each patient should be assessed as to whether they are likely to have any difficulties drinking or eating? When that is found to be the case, they have specially marked jugs and trays in red, which immediately alerts staff on duty to the need for extra care.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend raises a very good idea. I have heard of similar ideas in different trusts, all designed to meet the same objective. The key point my noble friend makes is that patients who may be malnourished when they enter hospital or have difficulty feeding or accessing drink for themselves should have their condition assessed straightaway so that the nursing care is there for them when they need it.

[Lord Laming]

Could the Minister assure the House that the Government will do everything possible to increase the number of unannounced inspections, both in hospital and in care homes, to make sure that these basic and very important matters are being properly attended to?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, since the publication of the CQC summary inspection report, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has requested a further 500 inspections of dignity and nutrition in care homes and 50 further visits to hospitals, which will start in the new year.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I was disturbed by the Minister’s first response to this Question because it sounded as if the Government are washing their hands of a hydration policy. Can the Minister say whether that is indeed the case? It seems to me vital that the Government should be providing leadership in ensuring that, at every level of health and social care, they are following through on the policies that are in existence and that have been disseminated over many years, and that they should not say that this is a matter for the policy of individual hospitals.

[Earl Howe]

No, my Lords, the Government are very far from washing their hands of this extremely important issue. As the noble Baroness will know, the new registration system under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 covers all providers of health and adult social care regulated activities. There is an outcome in that set of regulations which requires providers to adhere to the highest standards of nutrition and hydration. It is because of that that my right honourable friend has been so concerned to instigate these unannounced inspections by the CQC.

Housing: Landlord and Tenant Legislation

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Asked By

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consolidate all landlord and tenant legislation.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare a long-standing property interest, which is in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to consolidate all landlord and tenant legislation. “Landlord and tenant legislation” covers social and private renting, plus residential leasehold. It also covers renting and leasing in the commercial sector. The features and requirements of each housing sector or tenure type are reflected in specific legislation. A wide range of housing regulations is now being looked at as part of the red tape challenge.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for that disappointing Answer. The problem is that as each statute replaces something in the previous one, it has reached the point where even legal practitioners have great difficulty following these laws. Does she not think that a consolidation Act would mean that it could get to a point where ordinary leaseholders and tenants might be able to check on their own duties and responsibilities, which would be worth while?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, consolidation Acts take an enormous time to put together. As I have already said, landlord and tenant law covers several Acts. We appreciate that leasehold law in particular can be complex and that people find it difficult to understand. That is why the department provides guidance for leaseholders and free advice and information, which can be sought from the Leasehold Advisory Service. Consolidating legislation, while helpful, requires considerable Civil Service and parliamentary time, so there needs to be a very significant benefit from it.

[Baroness Deech]

Does the Minister agree that the way in which English or British law is presented on its original enactment, and even worse when it is amended, makes it very hard to understand and that we are not making best use of modern technology and computer-aided amendments in order that we and ordinary people can read the law as it is? Great efforts could be made in that direction, both in this House and outside, so that one does not have to rely on secondary sources in order to be able to understand primary legislation.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am sure that everybody would say amen to that. Unfortunately, it is not quite within my brief to deal with how legislation is constructed. I guess that it probably has a history which goes back generations. That is not to say that it should not be modernised, but I think that it will be in somebody else’s hands rather than mine.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would consider asking the Law Commission to look at this, particularly in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Baroness says and I will see what the response to that is from other sources.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, one of the most common complaints from private tenants is the failure of landlords to do major repairs such as a broken boiler or leaking roof. Could my noble friend the Minister clarify what steps can be taken to allow a tenant to carry out such major repairs and legally deduct the moneys from their rents? Would she also comment on the desirability of those rights being contained in legislation and not just relying on the varied proposals in common law?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, whether the tenant is able to do repairs to property and how that is dealt with will be on an individual tenancy agreement. Some landlords allow them to do repair work, some do not. Some demand that resources will be provided for it and some do not. This is something that each tenant needs to ensure is in their agreement so that they know exactly what the situation is.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, would my noble friend consider closely the suggestion made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss? This is precisely the sort of area where the Law Commission could be immensely helpful to us. Many of us in the House recognise that the complexity of our legislation grows exponentially from Parliament to Parliament, and the Law Commission would have the authority and the experience to be able to give very good advice about how this could be avoided.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am sure that the Law Commission pays enormous attention to what we say in the House. It will have heard what has been said and, if it thinks that that is a valuable investigation to undertake, I have no doubt that it will do so.

[Lord Best]

My Lords, I declare my housing interests as in the register and support the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to think of reforming landlord and tenant legislation to bring back security of tenure on an indefinite basis and rent controls, even though we face alarming rises in rents and some very bad landlords, because such a return would bring back the deterrent to institutional investment at a time when we badly need more money to come into rented housing? Would it not be better to use tax incentives and disincentives to reward good landlords and encourage investment by institutional investors?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his question. Bringing back indefinite security of tenure and rent controls is not the right way forward. We need a vital and highly flexible private rented sector, and previous experience has shown that measures such as he has described act only to reduce supply and that does not help tenants. As I am sure he knows, changes were made to stamp duty in the 2010 Budget, and we already have a commitment to look at the rules on real estate investment trusts. These are important signals about the value that we place on such investment and on the private rented sector.

Business of the House

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by Lord Strathclyde

That leave be given to advance the Third Reading of the Education Bill, which had been set down for 14 November, to 9 November.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that it is the practice in this House that noble Lords answer on behalf of the Government as a whole, not just on behalf of their own departments?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I am so pleased that the noble Baroness took the opportunity to ask me that question. I confirm that what she has just said is exactly right: from this Dispatch Box, Ministers are expected to speak on behalf of the whole Government. Interestingly enough, having just witnessed a slight disagreement about that in a Question to my noble friend Lord Freud, I think that he meant to say that the questions he was being asked were beyond the scope of the Question on the Order Paper, which would have been entirely in keeping with the spirit and practice of the House.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 18th Report from the Constitution Committee.

15:09

Clause 2 : The Secretary of State's duty as to improvement in quality of services

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Rix]

13: Clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) the promotion and improvement of the health of all disabled people, including those with co-morbidities”

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, five of the—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I take this opportunity again to remind colleagues that as they are leaving the Chamber they should, in courtesy, not walk in front of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as they are doing at the moment, but should leave by the other exit. It is considered discourteous to interrupt a speaker.

[Lord Rix]

Thank you. Five of the six amendments that I have tabled to the Bill have been grouped together. I welcome the opportunity to raise some specific concerns about the Government’s health reforms in relation to learning disability. I should also like to thank the Minister, who recently met the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and me, along with representatives from the Royal Mencap Society, of which I am president, to discuss our concerns in more detail.

As I made clear during my contribution at Second Reading, people with learning disabilities already have worse health outcomes than the rest of the general population. Mencap’s 2007 report, Death by Indifference, highlighted the neglect that was faced by six people who were treated in the NHS, leading to their deaths, which were entirely avoidable. Since then, many parents have approached Mencap to recount the indifference, prejudice and ignorance that is displayed towards people with a learning disability when being treated by the NHS. The purpose of the various amendments that I have tabled to the Bill is to address this problem.

First, Amendment 13 would ensure that the Secretary of State for Health has a clear duty to improve the quality of services for people with a disability. This is a prerequisite if the health inequalities to which I have previously referred are to be reduced and entirely removed as soon as possible. We hear a great deal from the Government about the importance of local decision-making, empowering patients and more opportunities for clinicians to make their input. In principle, I do not object to these intentions but they must not be at the cost of removing the accountability of the Secretary of State. By placing a duty on the Secretary of State to improve the quality of services for disabled people, I hope greater priority will be given in government to making this happen and seeing improvements on the ground.

My second amendment, Amendment 81, aims to ensure that health services for those with the most complex needs are commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board. I am concerned that, since the numbers of those with the most complex needs, particularly those with profound and multiple learning disabilities, are likely to be relatively small, clinical commissioning groups may not commission those services that are deemed to be insignificant. We already know that the commissioning of services for people with complex needs by primary care trusts has been patchy. It is questionable whether commissioning led by clinical commissioning groups alone will lead to any great improvement on this issue. My amendment would ensure that the NHS Commissioning Board has oversight in this area, including the co-ordination and commissioning of services and facilities for this very specialist group of disabled people.

The third amendment tabled in my name, Amendment 117, concerns the importance of collecting data on the experiences and outcomes of all patients in the NHS. Where a patient has a disability, it would also ensure a breakdown of disability by impairment type. This will provide a bank of information that could be disseminated and used to inform future NHS decision-making to ensure that it accurately reflects the expectations of those it seeks to serve. It would also help to ensure that clinical commissioning groups, the NHS Commissioning Board and the Secretary of State are more accountable for their decisions and better placed to improve such decisions. Without the collection of this data, including the impairment type for disability, it will be difficult accurately to assess what is happening to people with a learning disability and other disabled people within NHS treatment.

15:15

The penultimate amendment in my name in this group, Amendment 143, relates to accessibility in relation to public involvement and consultation by the NHS Commissioning Board. I welcome the direction of Clause 20, to which my amendment relates, because it is essential that the board is accountable to the public to ensure that its functions and decisions are subject to the correct level of public scrutiny, openness and transparency. However, I am concerned that this accountability would be limited if the means by which it achieved draws only on the views of a narrow cross-section of society. I am specifically referring to the need to include people with a learning disability, people with communication difficulties, the elderly, people with visual impairments—which, I regret, I have at this precise moment—and those with hearing difficulties who might require alternative formats or means of communication such as Braille or Easyread in order to influence decisions taken by the board.

Such individuals are disproportionately more likely to be more frequent users of the NHS, and therefore have a particular justification in wanting to have their say in the commissioning arrangements. I am seeking assurances that steps will be put in place to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made by the Commissioning Board to ensure that this participation is proactively addressed.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 245, tabled in my name, will place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that his or her annual report to Parliament on the performance of health services in England includes progress in tackling health inequalities for people with a disability. For example, there has been some progress in improving healthcare outcomes for people with a learning disability, but that progress remains inconsistent and disparate, with variances in equality of health outcomes continuing to exist for many disabled people.

More needs to be done if the NHS is to improve its record in this area. The need to tackle this issue has been acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Health—hence his recent announcement that he plans to provide GPs and the new clinical commissioning groups with the practical support necessary to improve their understanding of the needs of particularly vulnerable groups. This work is to be led by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which is recognition of the importance of trying to provide better healthcare for all. The existence of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report on progress made in the NHS in tackling health inequalities would act as an important driver in improving healthcare for all.

In light of the various amendments tabled in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hollins and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the issues that I have raised. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Rix. He made reference to people with learning disabilities and in particular expressed concern about people with complex needs. I should like to say a little more about people with learning disabilities who have challenging behaviour. It is estimated that as many as 40 per cent of people with learning disabilities may present behaviours that are challenging to family and other carers. These behaviours can be so intense and frequent as to have a major impact on the quality of life of the individual and their families.

People who present severe behavioural challenges are among the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals in our society and are at much greater risk of exclusion, institutionalisation, deprivation, physical harm, abuse, misdiagnosis and exposure to ineffective interventions. Their carers are subject to physical harm, psychological ill-health, physical ill-health and to an increased burden of care and financial consequences. It can also have an impact on their employment prospects and quality of life.

Commissioners, policymakers and providers all face escalating costs and risk undermining national policy. Providers face high staff sickness and turnover, service breakdown, scandals and exposés such as the recent “Panorama” programme about Winterbourne View in Bristol and previous scandals in recent years in Cornwall and Merton and Sutton.

Back in 1993, Professor Jim Mansell emphasised the need for commissioners of health and social care to work together to provide good support and services for this group of individuals. He recommended locally based, individualised packages of care. He suggested that the environments where people are cared for should be skilled and capable of maintaining support for the long term. He revised his report in 2007 for the Department of Health and made the same points because insufficient progress had been made. He and others, such as the Challenging Behaviour Foundation, have made it very clear that large institutional provision is not the answer, yet many people with learning disabilities have care packages commissioned within such institutional care, mainly in the independent sector, funded by the NHS and by social services. These placements are often far from home. They have little guarantee of high-quality, skilled care and are vulnerable to the kind of restrictive practices that have been revealed time and again in a variety of high profile exposés. This care is often very high cost, as well as not delivering good outcomes for people.

A recent publication entitled There Is an Alternative, published by the Association for Supported Living, makes a strong argument for local, community-based support, saying that it is more successful and cheaper than specialist in-patient provision. However, for that to happen requires vision, commitment and a will to make it happen. It cannot be achieved without the will of effective local commissioners, a will that must be expressed in decisions to invest in local community-based services, rather than to farm out problem cases to expensive out-of-area placements—what in the world of learning disability we know as the “crisis Friday afternoon very expensive mistaken placement”. Most successful supported living services have their roots in commissioners' decisions to invest in that service model, acting on sound demographic knowledge of the communities they serve and the needs and wishes of the people with learning disabilities who live within them.

I am sure that health and well-being boards will have an important role in thinking about the needs of their population with learning disabilities in that way. However, it is clear that there need to be good lines of accountability in future. There is a worry that local clinical commissioning groups will not be able to commission adequately when specialist services are needed. They will have to be able to address a comprehensive local strategy that can deliver early intervention, timely and skilled professional expertise and support, competent and high-quality providers of individualised support and services, flexible crisis intervention services, such as psychological therapies, which are very underdeveloped for that group of people, and psychiatry, which can build the support required for each individual—real individualised care. The numbers of individuals are relatively small but they can be very high cost if the services are not planned well.

It is essential that the needs of this group of individuals are specifically considered within the new commissioning arrangements. I always say that if we can get it right for people with learning disabilities and complex needs, we can get it right for everybody else. There may be an argument for looking to the National Commissioning Board to take this overall responsibility without compromising the need to find ways to ensure local responsibility—the delivery of creative, flexible and local solutions to meet the needs of individuals and families within their own communities. This is quite a challenge, which is why I have gone to such lengths to explain the problem faced by this complex group of people. I ask the Minister to comment on how such services might be commissioned in the future.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly in support of the general thrust of the amendments without necessarily saying that I agree with every dot and comma. I also agree, not least, with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I have known each other for quite a long while in the field of learning disabilities and, indeed, through my role many years ago as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, so I am happy to lend a sympathetic word on this point.

I ought to declare an interest in that several times I have told the House that I am the chair of a mental health trust. Of course, mental health trusts often deal with learning disabilities as well, as indeed does the health trust that I chair, although happily last year it transferred most of its residents on old-style campuses to Suffolk County Council for a more complete version of genuine living in the community and community care, and I am rather pleased that we did that.

We need to recognise that, although there are overlaps—the word “co-morbidities” is used in one of the amendments—between mental illness and learning disability, they are not the same, and we need to make sure that we take particular and appropriate account of the needs of learning disabilities in all this. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that will be the case.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has been such an outstanding champion of people with disabilities, alongside my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. The two of them have been in the vanguard of public policy-making and of informing and involving people in this crucial issue.

The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Newton, both implied that learning disability is something of an overlooked condition. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the degree of prejudice and ignorance surrounding learning disability, which sometimes leads to the rather disgraceful treatment of individuals who suffer from that complaint, as we read from time to time. It is therefore right that they should be included in this broad request for the Secretary of State to have a duty to promote the equality of and improvement in treatment for people with all kinds of disability.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and to a degree the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, questioned whether this might be rather too much of an issue for local commissioning groups to undertake. I am not so sure about that, and think that this area needs exploring. After all, the general practitioners, who will be a significant part of clinical commissioning groups locally, are the first line of service providers for people with a disability, and I am not clear that a commissioning body operating nationally would be the appropriate mechanism to promote such commissioning. Something like the shortly-to-disappear SHAs might have been, and it is not clear—at any rate, to me—the extent to which the national Commissioning Board will be operating at that sub-national level in the future. However, at all events, somebody has to assume an overarching responsibility, and local authority health scrutiny committees should certainly be ensuring that this group is not neglected in their statutory responsibility of reviewing the efficacy of local arrangements and local provision.

The noble Lord referred to the important issue of data collection in Amendments 117 and 143 and of drawing on the experience of people with the condition. I think that he would probably accept my suggestion that both of the amendments would be slightly improved by reference to carers, as their experiences should also be shared and brought into the picture. The amendments suffer a slight defect which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, implicitly touched on. The amendments relate very much to the clinical and medical side of the conditions with which the amendments are concerned, but, of course, there are other agencies and other services that are important and must play a part in improving life for people with any of the range of conditions covered by the amendments.

15:30

The role of local authorities can and should be very important in this respect. There will be a locus for involvement through the health and well-being boards in the preparation of joint strategic needs assessments which would, of course, cover this group. However, there is a range of local authority services—not least housing, a service carried out by district councils in two-tier areas—which will not necessarily be included in the commissioning groups, a matter to which we might revert later. There is also the question of the provision of aids and adaptations, leisure, educational services, transport, community safety and possibly, pending the introduction of a new structure for welfare reform, access to benefits through the support of welfare rights services. Clearly, all those matters can influence outcomes and the quality of life of a significant number of those whose needs the amendments seek to address.

It will be interesting to hear the Minister's replies to the observations made by noble Lords in proposing and supporting the amendments. It is important that there should be a reference to this group in the Bill, as that would send precisely the right signal to them, to their carers, to society at large and to decision-makers at all levels. If the Minister cannot accede to the amendment today, I hope that he will agree to take it away and come back on Report with something that would satisfy that particular need.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rix’s amendment on children with complex needs and the special services that they need reminds me of a visit that I made a few years ago to a service run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This service was for a small and unpopular group of children who sexually harm other children and the manager said that it was very difficult to determine who should fund it. The primary care trust did not want to fund it. However, it was a vital service which intervened early in children's lives and stopped them from continuing their harmful behaviour towards other children into adulthood. The matter is relevant to this debate because the victims of sexual harm are often children with learning disabilities, and the children who perpetrate sexual harm are also more likely to come from the learning disabled group. We need to be reassured that services like that will find a home in the new arrangements. I look for reassurance from the Minister that that will be the case.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the Committee will join me in expressing our admiration for the long record of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in championing the cause of disability rights. They will have had a great deal of sympathy with what he and others have said in this debate.

The Government are committed to improving the lives of people with learning disabilities and the lives of their carers and families. Since we last had a debate of this kind in the context of a health Bill, the legislative backdrop has changed in a very material and important way. I am referring, of course, to the Equality Act 2010. The public sector equality duty in Section 149 of that Act requires public bodies to consider the impact of policies and decisions on particular groups across the protected characteristics. It also requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity. This general public sector equality duty came into force in April 2011. This means that public bodies such as commissioners, local authorities, health trusts, other providers of NHS services and regulators need to understand how different groups are affected by their policies and practices across all protected characteristics, including disability, and ensure that they routinely use equality data in order to have due regard in their decisions. Furthermore, public authorities need to have a clear evidence base from which they can determine and set clear and measurable equality objectives in line with their specific duties in regulations made under Section 153 of the Act.

Sections 29 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibit discrimination against disabled persons, whether direct or indirect, by NHS employers, providers of health services and persons exercising other NHS functions. There are, in addition, important duties that apply to the NHS in relation to disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments which public bodies must make. Duties to make reasonable adjustments in relation to employment or the provision of services are set out in Sections 20, 29(7) and 39(5) of the Equality Act. The purpose of these duties is to ensure that employers and service providers have a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles which may place a disabled person at a disadvantage in comparison to a non-disabled person.

This Bill plays its own part in helping to ensure that the care system delivers these commitments and improvements. It introduces new duties in relation to quality and fairness. It creates underpinning legislation for the NHS outcomes framework, which links to the public health and social care frameworks, and that will shine a light on the experiences of all patients and service users, including disabled people. The Bill brings clarity to quality through NICE quality standards that describe high-quality care along a pathway addressing the key issue of co-morbidities. The changes to the regulatory framework give Monitor a role in Clause 59 in relation to improvement in quality and fairness, as well as efficiency. The Secretary of State’s annual report will be closely linked to the objectives that he sets for the NHS Commissioning Board and Public Health England. These are likely to evolve over time to meet changing health needs.

Because the new duties relating to quality and the reduction of inequalities apply to a number of bodies in the system, it would seem logical to include these aspects in the annual report. I can give an assurance that we have every expectation that the improvement of quality and the reduction of inequalities will be key reporting themes in the Secretary of State’s annual report.

Our starting point is that people with a learning disability are people first. They have the right to lead their lives like any others, with the same opportunities and responsibilities, and the same dignity and respect. There is a clear policy framework towards people with learning disabilities, including those with profound and multiple learning disabilities and behaviour that challenges. Valuing People, published in 2001, set out the previous Government’s commitment to improving the lives of people with learning disabilities, and set out the core principles of rights, independence, choice and inclusion. In 2009, that Government reaffirmed these principles in Valuing People Now. The coalition Government have also endorsed them. Key areas include improving outcomes for people with learning disabilities and their family carers around health, housing and employment, in particular enabling people to live healthier and for longer, including by improving access to high-quality healthcare, helping people to secure and stay in employment and supporting people to live in their own homes, including closing NHS campuses.

The first NHS outcomes framework signalled a number of important areas that needed to be included in it in the future. One of those areas was to understand and measure good outcomes for people with learning disabilities. The existing data and data collections do not easily allow outcomes for people with disabilities, including learning disabilities, to be identified. To help rectify this my right honourable friend Andrew Lansley launched the innovation in outcomes competition earlier this year to try to help to fill these gaps. I am delighted that we received some extremely helpful suggestions for how we might incorporate outcomes for people with learning disabilities in future iterations of the framework.

In addition to the NHS outcomes framework, the mandate is a mechanism through which it may be possible to draw attention to the importance of improving the quality of services and outcomes for people with learning disabilities. Improving outcomes for people with learning disabilities and their family carers is about making change happen at a local level for all people. It needs the full commitment of the full range of service providers and agencies across all sectors that need to work in partnership to plan, review and commission strategically.

As was well emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, local authorities and health bodies are required to develop a joint strategic needs assessment and to commission services to address those needs. Joint commissioning with local authorities in relation to care and support for people with learning disabilities will help to support them better. We expect services delivering support to people with learning disabilities to act to ensure they are fully compliant with the law, especially the Equality Act 2010.

I turn now to the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 12. This clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the NHS Commissioning Board to commission certain services that it would be less appropriate for clinical commissioning groups to commission. One of the reasons for giving GPs within clinical commissioning groups responsibility for commissioning NHS services locally is their unique position as the gateway by which patients access the majority of NHS services. However, there are some services that patients do not access via their GP, and there are others, for patients with rare conditions which are high cost and where clinical expertise needs to be concentrated, that require them to be commissioned and organised separately. For those services we believe that it would be better for the NHS Commissioning Board to take the lead. Dental services and services for members of the Armed Forces and for persons detained in prison or other accommodation of a prescribed description were included in the Bill because there was a clear policy intention for the board to commission the majority of services in these areas, and they could be easily defined in broad terms in primary legislation. This was confirmed by the consultation process on the implementation of the NHS White Paper and in the subsequent Command Paper.

Clause 12 provides that regulations may require the board to commission such other services or facilities as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate for the board rather than clinical commissioning groups to commission. The intention is that this would include specialised services for very rare or rare conditions where different arrangements currently apply because of their low volume and high cost. Currently, these services are either commissioned nationally by NHS London or regionally by primary care trusts working through collaborative commissioning arrangements with their specialised commissioning groups. In deciding what services it would be appropriate for the Commissioning Board to commission directly, the Secretary of State would be required to take into account a number of factors. These four factors are set out in Clause 12.

For services such as those for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and people with complex needs whose behaviour challenges services, it is expected that some services will be considered specialised and therefore should be commissioned nationally. This is the specific question posed to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Some services will not be considered specialised and should be commissioned by clinical commissioning groups working with local authorities.

The services included in the regulations could change over time as new services develop, existing specialised services become more common, and so on. The point here is that there is flexibility for the Secretary of State to take account of these changing factors and to require the board through regulations to commission certain services in a way that primary legislation does not.

15:45

We do not think it would be suitable to include services for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and people with complex needs whose behaviour challenges services in Clause 12, although I hope that what I have said is helpful in this context. We have, however, set up a clinical advisory group to make recommendations on an initial list of specialised services that will be directly commissioned by the board and tested against the four factors set out in Clause 12. That work is progressing and no final decisions have been made, but I can assure the noble Lord that the CAG’s considerations have been based on the premise that the specialised services national definition set will form the solid basis for the specialised services included in the regulations. The current SSNDS includes a number of services that people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and people with complex needs whose behaviour challenges services can access. That includes specialised neurosciences services for adults, specialist mental health services and specialist services for children. I am looking particularly in the direction of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

On Amendment 117, the general public sector equality duty already requires public authorities to pay due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity. The Bill imposes additional, health-specific duties in relation to reducing health inequalities. In practice, this would entail collecting and analysing data to understand the needs and experiences of people using their services according to their protected characteristics. Furthermore, the NHS outcomes framework will include a number of measures of patient experience. Wherever possible these will be broken down by protected characteristics in order to promote a renewed focus on tackling inequalities in outcomes from healthcare services.

The framework provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can hold the NHS Commissioning Board to account for the outcomes that it is securing for patients. The board will be under a duty to assess the outcomes achieved by clinical commissioning groups for their local populations. It will be expected to discharge this duty in ways that support reductions in inequalities and promote equality. I am afraid that I do not think it would be appropriate to give greater emphasis in the Bill to some protected characteristics and not to others.

On Amendment 143, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, should be assured by the fact that the Government are committed to involving patients and the public in decisions about health services that are being or may be provided to them. As I have already indicated, the general public sector equality duty already requires public authorities to pay due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity. The Bill imposes an additional health-specific duty in relation to reducing health inequalities. The means through which to involve and consult must be capable of reflecting the needs of all members of the community.

The health inequalities duty on the board, as on the Secretary of State and clinical commissioning groups, will require it to act appropriately in order to comply with its duties. The same applies to the board’s public involvement and consultation duty at new Section 13P. The board will be required to involve or consult people appropriately in order to fulfil this duty and will have to have its duties in relation to equality firmly in mind when doing so.

It is clearly right that the views of people with any impairments or disabilities are appropriately sought. However, we need to bear in mind that there are other groups in the community for whom reasonable adjustments may need to be made to ensure meaningful consultation, for example those whose first language is not English. I realise that the noble Lord may consider those with learning disabilities to be a special case, but to single out one group over another would be inequitable.

On Amendment 245, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the Secretary of State will include in his annual report a comprehensive account of the state of the health service. I have already mentioned the duty to reduce inequalities in this context. I believe that the existing robust legislative framework, allied with the changes introduced by this Bill, will deliver demonstrable improvements in outcomes for disabled people. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful response, particularly with regard to specialist services for children. I was interested in his point that the advent of the clinical advisory group will help the Secretary of State in making these decisions. I should be grateful to him if he could provide an assurance that, as the name suggests, this clinical advisory group will have a strong basis of expertise, that its membership will have long practice in the fields of interest and that there will be transparency as regards the members of the group and their experience. Perhaps that is too much to ask, but having discussed these issues with him in the past over the Cassel Hospital specialist service for families with complex needs, it seems that everyone would benefit from being reassured that the people who advise the Secretary of State have a depth of knowledge in the areas and specialist fields for which they are responsible.

[Earl Howe]

I can reassure the noble Earl that the clinical advisory group is taking and welcomes expert advice from all quarters. It is taking its time to get this right. It is too soon to announce any conclusions from its work, but I have no doubt in my mind that the noble Earl’s concerns will be addressed fully.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, after that long, complex reply from the Minister, I shall have to read Hansard from top to bottom tomorrow. He referred to many Acts, which have yet to prove their efficacy in some instances, and to all manner of directives, which I could not write down and take note of at this moment. However, I thank him for his comprehensive response. When I read Hansard, I hope that it will prove to be more than helpful.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lady Hollins, whose expert opinions and advice are both personal and professional. I should also like to say, possibly at great risk because I am surrounded by doctors and nurses, that I fear that it is only people such as my noble friend Lady Hollins who have really worked at learning disability and that students who come out of St George’s know more about learning disability than perhaps many other medical students and young doctors who come out of other medical schools. Therefore, if clinicians are to be made to guide the commissioning boards et cetera on the work that has to be done for learning and disabled people, I have to say that I fear that some clinicians are rather short of experience in this area. I say this with due deference to my noble friends who are all around me at the moment and I hope that they will not clobber me when I get into the tea room after the next amendment.

I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Newton. I was very glad to have support from both sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I have discussed learning disability for many years. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who is new to me, and to have his support. Without further ado, I look forward to reading Hansard tomorrow and to consulting my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Hollins and Lord Wigley, and all the people at Mencap and other devoted charities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

15: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, after first “the” insert “health”

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments tabled in my name, but before I do so I should like to thank all noble Lords who have joined their names to these amendments—and of course there are amendments tabled in their names as well. Given the size and complexity of the Bill and what it covers, my amendments may well appear to address minor issues, but on reading the Bill in detail—I have read it line by line—it occurred to me that there are some fundamental omissions, even if they concern only a single word. I must ask why, when the Bill is supposed to implement a reorganisation of the health service that will deliver world-class health outcomes, such important issues have been missed out.

I shall address each amendment tabled in my name, and take Amendment 15 first. Clause 2 will insert a new clause covering the Secretary of State’s, “Duty as to improvement in quality of services”. New subsection (2) states:

“In discharging the duty under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must, in particular, act with a view to securing continuous improvement in the outcomes”.

It makes no sense to me if the word “health” is not inserted before the word “outcomes”. We are talking about the health outcomes that are achieved from the provision of services. Equally, new subsection (4) states:

“In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the quality standards prepared by NICE”.

I wonder why the word “clinical” is not before “quality standards” so as to emphasise that these have to be clinical quality standards. I am well aware that NICE produces technology assessments that are often referred to as technology standards, and that it writes standards in other areas, but they are all for the purpose of refining clinical care or developing eventual clinical quality standards that deliver clinical care.

Perhaps I may say with some humility that I am aware of what clinical quality standards are all about, having for five years had the job of writing them. I am also familiar with some of the clinical quality standards written by organisations that we would regard as being the best in the world, such as the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Harvard, the Mayo Clinic and others, including some Australian institutions. They all refer to quality standards as being clinical quality standards, because they are what matter in the delivery of care. Apart from that, those are the standards that the Commissioning Board will use to build packages of currency that Monitor will then use to produce tariffs, so if they are not clinical standards, what are they? In my view, it is clinical standards that will deliver the outcomes we seek, so why not call them clinical standards?

Amendment 107 refers to Clause 20, which covers the duties and functions of the Commissioning Board. Proposed new Section 13E is entitled, “Duty as to improvement in quality of services”. Subsection (3), which I seek to amend, states:

“The outcomes relevant for the purposes of subsection (2) include, in particular, outcomes which show—

(a) the effectiveness of the services,

(b) the safety of the services, and

(c) the quality of the experience undergone by patients”.

That is the definition of quality standards that we are using, but it does not mention delivering better outcomes for patients. Why are these quality standards that will deliver better outcomes for patients not the standards that we want? If we do, why do we not put them in the Bill? It will alter the culture of people who work in the health service when they read language and words such as “clinical standards” and “health outcomes” for individuals or in practice. My noble friend Lord Warner tabled a similar amendment to which he will no doubt speak.

16:00

My Amendment 109 would again introduce “clinical” to new Section 13E(4)(b) of the 2006 Act, so that “quality standards” would become “clinical quality standards”. My Amendment 134 again relates to the duties and functions of the Commissioning Board. New Section 13L refers to the, “Duty in respect of research” and new Section 13M to, “Duty as to promoting integration”. We have discussed integration previously, when I referred to an example of care for diabetics. New Section 13M(1) states:

“The Board must exercise its functions with a view to securing that health services are provided in an integrated way”.

Why does it state “an integrated way” when it means “a clinically integrated way”, as my amendment proposes? The patient will benefit from a service that is clinically integrated to deliver individual care, which will make a difference to their outcome.

Amendment 179 again refers to the functions of the NHS Commissioning Board. New Section 14Q is headed, “Duty as to improvement in quality of services”. It is very important. Subsection (1) states:

“Each clinical commissioning group must exercise its functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to individuals”.

Again, it misses out the word “clinical”. It is the clinical quality of services provided to individuals that will deliver continuous improvement and better outcomes. Subsection (2) also misses out the word “clinical” when it refers to outcomes, which my Amendment 181 would remedy. I repeat that the use of these words establishes a culture in practice. I know from long experience that these words are important, and these amendments include them.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I draw the Minister’s attention to the noble Lord’s great expertise, of which I am sure he is aware, in the area of setting standards for good clinical outcomes. He has done this in Scotland and the Committee should take careful note of the amendments that he has proposed and which I strongly support. I shall not go over again the ground that the noble Lord has covered, but he has made a compelling case for tidying up the wording of the 2006 Act in the areas that he has suggested.

Amendment 109 is in my name and that of the noble Lord. The words that it would add to new Section 13E(3) are very important to patients. Good and speedy access to services is essential to good outcomes, but it is an issue with which the Conservative Party has played fast and loose in its efforts to distance itself from targets. In doing so, it may have made itself popular with the NHS but it has rather lost sight of the importance that access to services has for patients in terms of their view of the way in which the NHS treats them.

Good and speedy access is critical to good outcomes, and nowhere is that more apparent than in cancer services, which is why a lot of effort was put in by the previous Government, with experts in cancer, to devise the targets that were produced in this area. I am not trying to make a party political broadcast on the success of Labour’s access targets, although the temptation is enormous, but to bring out the key difference in approach to access between many parts of the Chamber and the Government Front Bench. I suspect that when the Minister comes to reply, I will get a little lesson on the lines that access is a process and what we should concentrate on is outcomes. I suspect that his brief will tell us a lot about that particular issue.

I suggest that there is a different way of looking at this. Access is not just a process issue because it incorporates one of the requirements for good outcomes. Of course, no one, least of all me, is suggesting that we should be against trying to define outcomes or measuring performance in achieving those outcomes. Some of us have spent the best part of our working lives trying to deal with the subject of outcomes in a whole range of public services. But we usually struggle, as I suspect this Government will, to define the outcome appropriately and to find an appropriate measure. Often we have to wait an indecently long time for the outcome to become apparent. We are often forced back onto proxies, which usually look much more like outputs than outcomes. Performance measures on access are a good example, not least because without speedy access patients are unlikely to get good outcomes.

It is also important that we have speedy access in order to ensure that diagnosis takes place, particularly in areas such as cancer. That is why targets were used by the previous Government to drive improvements to access. One reason why they got involved in the issue of targets and access was the great public concern in the 1990s about the length of time people had to wait before they could get access to services. I am not making a party political point, but trying to get across to the Benches opposite that patients take this very seriously. They judge the NHS to a great extent on whether they can get access to services in a timely way. It is worth bearing in mind that the previous Government's targets were actually less demanding than some of the views that patients had on how long they should wait to get services. Patients were much more demanding than the NHS targets that the previous Government set for the NHS in this area.

A Nuffield Trust comparative study of access targets in north-east England and the lack of them in Scotland revealed that the English experience was better for patients both in terms of speedier access and of efficiency and cost. It also showed that targets were indeed often unpopular with NHS staff. But if we are to make a choice between popularity with NHS staff and popularity with patients, I know which side of that argument I would prefer to be on.

I know that the Government have begun to retreat, to some extent, on the issue of abolition of targets, but we need to keep speedy access to services high on the NHS agenda, particularly as the NHS moves through a period of considerable challenge. Our five little words in Amendment 109 would help to do that, and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to accept them.

[Baroness Bakewell]

I support Amendment 18B, which is also included under the heading,

“Duty as to improvement in quality of services”,

of the proposed new Section 1A to the 2006 Act.

I speak on behalf of particular interest group: the old. I declare an interest. I was for 18 months the government-appointed Voice of Older People. The interest group for which I speak is large and growing larger. Some 10 million people are now over 65 in the UK. In 2034, 23 per cent of the population will be over 65 of whom 3.5 million will be of the older old—over 85. That age, 85, is significant to the amendment. The amendment is to new Section 1A(3), proposed in Clause 2, dealing with the Secretary of State’s duty to seek continuous improvement in the outcomes, and it lists the relevant outcomes to be measured: effectiveness, safety and quality. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others about the important amendments to that.

Amendment 18B seeks to add a fourth consideration—and a rather odd one—which is that,

“These outcomes should not exclude sections of the population due to age”.

That phrase sits uneasily here—it would sit uneasily anywhere—because it is not of a kind like any other. However, it is important for the many people who will be numbered in the data on which outcomes are based—or, rather, not listed in the data.

The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011/12, which sets out outcomes and corresponding indicators, states:

“Where indicators are included which can be compared internationally, levels of ambition will work towards the goal of achieving outcomes which are among the best in the world”—

a laudable aim indeed. However, the document goes on later to state:

“Current data collections are limited in the extent to which this is possible … We recognise that there are certain groups or areas which the framework may not effectively capture at present, simply because the data and data collections available do not allow outcomes for these groups to be identified”.

In the document’s charts that show the overarching indicators, it is clear that many of the indicators stop at the age of 75. The indicators specify the mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and liver disease. Thus, the data on deaths from such causes over the age of 75 are not monitored under the outcomes framework, despite the fact that life expectancy is far higher than 75.

It is also clear that many of the data are under development. I understand that, and there is work to be done. As the document states:

“This is the first NHS Outcomes Framework and … it is intended to signal the direction of travel for the NHS”.

The direction of travel for the population of this country is to have a much higher percentage of older old people. We already have more than 12,000 centenarians. Throughout debates on this Bill, I will be pressing for considerations of age to be written specifically into its provisions.

Why do we need to be so explicit? Surely we are all citizens, we are all taxpayers and, in the end, we are all patients. That is of course the reasonable case, but that is not how care is experienced. A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health concluded:

“Evidence of the under-investigation and under-treatment of older people in cancer care, cardiology and stroke is so widespread and strong that, even taking into account confounding factors such as frailty, co-morbidity and polypharmacy we must conclude that ageist attitudes are having an effect on overall investigation and treatment levels”.

That was in a report published for the Department of Health. To give just a simple anecdotal example from broader practice, although the risk of breast cancer increases with age, the general-practice reminders that are sent out to women to invite them to mammograms stop once a woman reaches the age of 70.

My amendment seeks to make clear, and even overemphasise, that all outcomes include all sections of the population. Prevailing attitudes to the old require that to be spelled out in the Bill.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I support Amendments 15 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to which I have added my name. In so doing, I speak as a practising clinician and I wish to emphasise the wise point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the need to ensure that the Bill describes important facets of what needs to be achieved to improve culture within the NHS.

At Oral Questions today, we heard a discussion about hydration policy. Clearly, in a healthcare system, it is important that the culture is appropriate. Therefore, an emphasis on specifying “health outcomes” and “clinical quality standards” is also important because that will drive a cultural emphasis on the fact that improvement of health is the purpose of the Bill. The failure specifically to recognise, on page 2 in line 17, the issue of outcomes being specifically those of health, and in line 27 the quality standards to be specifically those of clinical quality, is potentially an important failure that should be recognised. I hope that in responding to this debate the Minister can confirm that with the emphasis on health outcomes and clinical quality standards, the purpose of the Bill will be emphasised in the language used in the Bill.

16:15

[Baroness Barker]

I follow on from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, by raising a question for the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Does he accept that if his amendments were accepted, for some of us that would run the risk of medicalisation of long-term conditions? I agree with him when he says that there needs to be a change in culture—culture is all important. What this Bill seeks to do is to break down a lot of the barriers between health and social care so that the health and well-being, in the broadest sense, of individuals, are improved. That is an enormously important step forward, not least because much of the preventive work needs to be done with the population, in terms of lifestyle and so on, to decrease admissions to the NHS. That is what has traditionally been carried out not by healthcare but by other agencies.

I throw the noble Lord a somewhat philosophical question. If his amendment were to be accepted, would that be an acceptance by the medical profession that health and social care need to work in a far more integrated fashion than they have ever done before to achieve what he would term health and clinical outcomes, to which I would add well-being outcomes?

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, there is no conflict when I use the word “clinical” in recognising that it would encompass the totality of clinical and social care. The problem will arise that while the evidence exists to be able to write clinical quality standards, the evidence to write social standards is lacking, and we may have to develop those. That is why a distinction is made between the two. In terms of immediate outcomes for patients that are seen for medical care, the clinical quality standards will make the difference. That does not mean that I do not recognise clinical and well-being together—and I think that all doctors would recognise that. It is not medicalisation that I am after by using the term “clinically”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this has been an interesting series of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a very important point about the influence that legislators can have in drafting legislation on the culture of the NHS. He speaks with great experience because of his work in Scotland on the development of clinical standards, and I am sure he is right to emphasise the words “health” and “clinical” in adding to our understanding of what we seek from the National Health Service.

The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is very interesting. This is meant to be a health and social care Bill, although there is very little about social care in it. Indeed, the only provisions ranging around social care are bad provisions. Remarkably, we are proposing to abolish the General Social Care Council, which ought to be an uplifter of standards among social workers. I give notice that I intend to thoroughly oppose these provisions and place the regulation of social workers into a health body. I look forward to the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on that when we come to it. I would have thought that the way through is either to add well-being to this part of the Bill or to say “health, clinical and other outcomes” to meet the valid point raised by noble Baroness.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell is very keen in her Amendment 18B to ensure that in securing the outcomes set out in the Bill, we,

“should not exclude sections of the population”,

on grounds of age. We look to the Minister to give us some reassurance on my noble friend’s point about the overarching indicators used extensively in the department and the health service, which go up to only the age of 75. It is not good enough to say that the data are still under development and therefore we will not worry about statistics on the over-75s. One would like to think that those indicators will be revised to embrace people over 75.

Amendment 16A, which is my own amendment, relates to the efficiency of the service. It seeks to add “efficiency” to the criteria that need to be considered. I would be interested to know from the noble Earl why efficiency is not mentioned in line 23 on page 2 of the Bill. My argument would be that a measurement of a service’s effectiveness may be of only limited value. One example might be the fraught question of new drugs and treatment being developed by industry and marketed indirectly to patients, for example through the sponsorship of charities that promote the case for the provision of new treatments in the NHS, and there is a strong case to make those treatments improve the effectiveness, safety and quality of experience. However, if you do not also have to consider efficiency, is there not a risk that you will not look at value for money or productivity and, in the end, not give a rounded analysis of a particular new treatment or technology?

Amendment 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, deals with the standards prepared by NICE under Clause 231. I hope that the noble Earl can clarify the status of NICE standards and guidelines. I have a later amendment on this matter, as do my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We have been concerned by suggestions that the Government are seeking to downplay the role of NICE and the statutory nature of its guidance on technology appraisals. I would be very grateful if the noble Earl could reassure me on that.

I remind the noble Earl that NICE was established because of the traditional delay in the health service when a treatment has been proven to be cost-efficient and effective. There was always reckoned to be a long delay from the time when it was proven to be cost-effective, efficient and clinically effective to the time when it generally available in the National Health Service. NICE guidance was designed to speed up the adoption of such proven new treatments, technologies and drugs. I am concerned about any suggestion of returning to the bad old ways when it was up to each clinical commissioning group simply to decide on a new technology and the group not having to follow the guidance set out in the NICE technology appraisals—if that is what they are called; I think we have probably moved on from that terminology. We will of course return to that later on in the Bill, but some assurance would be welcome.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Warner’s Amendment 109. I never understood the Opposition’s opposition to waiting time targets in the NHS. I remind the Minister that when his Government last left office they had the patients’ charter, which had a waiting time target of 18 months that they did not achieve. We got it down to 18 weeks, which had a hugely beneficial impact on patients. There is no doubt, if you look at regular polling, that the NHS was in very good condition in 2010 because to all intents and purposes the dreadful waiting that had been such a product of the NHS over many decades had been radically reduced.

We know that there is a sense in the health service that the Government are no longer worried about waiting times. I have no doubt whatever that if the pressure is taken off, waiting times will start to rise again. That might suit the Government because of the funding issues that they are confronting the NHS with, and it would certainly suit the private sector, which we know does well out of long NHS waiting times, but it will do patients no good at all. I do not know how far my noble friend Lord Warner intends to take this, either now or at a later stage, but it is important that we say in the Bill that we are concerned about the speed of access to services.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other noble Lords for introducing this group of amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this has been an excellent debate with a shared commitment to ensuring that quality sits at the heart of the Bill. I find that heartening. I recognise the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in defining what quality looks like.

The grouping revolves around the definition of the duty of quality and how the term “quality” is addressed throughout the Bill. As was discussed in earlier debates, the duty of quality enshrined in the Bill is derived from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, High Quality Care for All, published in 2008. The noble Lord set out that quality could truly happen only when three different factors were present: safety, effectiveness and patient experience. That definition was widely welcomed at the time and over the past three years has become valued across the NHS.

The definition did not come out of the blue. The noble Lord’s review was produced with the NHS, with patients, clinicians and managers, using the strategic visions developed in each of the 10 strategic health authorities. Its definition of quality—effectiveness, experience, safety—has survived even the electoral cycle. Indeed, one of our first priorities as a Government when we came to power was to build on the noble Lord’s work. We did this through publishing a consultation paper and then following it up with the first NHS outcomes framework, published in December last year. Respondents to the consultation on the outcomes framework were highly supportive of the continued use of the definition of quality and the fact that the framework sought to measure patient-reported outcomes and patient experience as well as clinical outcomes.

The question we have to ask ourselves about the amendments is simple: does the definition need to change? My view is clear: we should stick with the original definition. However well intentioned the amendments are, there would be risks attached to them.

I shall start with Amendments 19, 110, 134, 179 and 181. The intention, if I understand it correctly, is to specify that the duty of quality should be restricted to clinical matters in order to ensure a focus on clinical quality and outcomes for patients. I understand the noble Lord’s arguments but my fear is that these amendments would have the effect of narrowing the duty of quality and losing the integrated approach that it embodies. Let us consider this with regard to quality standards, covered in Clause 231. Quality standards, as I have already said, bring clarity to quality, providing definitive and authoritative statements of high quality care that are based on the evidence of what works best. That idea opens up the opportunity for quality standards to cover an integrated care package, from public health interventions in primary care to rehabilitation and long-term support in social care, thereby supporting the integration of health and social care services. I fear that we would lose this integrated approach if we were to restrict the Secretary of State’s obligation to looking only at clinical standards.

16:30

Similarly, restricting the NHS Commissioning Board’s integration duty to services provided in a clinically integrated way would preclude integration where the board consider at it would be beneficial, although not clinically, to the people receiving those services, such as in improving the patient’s experience. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lady Barker in this context. Focusing just on clinical outcomes would mean the exclusion of non-clinical outcomes, such as access, reduction in health inequalities, healthy living, health promotion and the health-related services that we want to see integrated in an increasingly effective way.

In a similar vein, I am afraid I am unable to accept Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar. Clause 2 is clear that the only outcomes that can be pursued relate to the definition of quality. By limiting the pursuit of better outcomes just to health outcomes, the amendment would cut out crucial outcomes such as delivering a better patient experience. We need to look at care in the fullest sense when looking at ways to improve integrated care. I cannot help but feel that these amendments risk undermining this principle. Therefore, I hope the noble Lords will think again about them.

Amendment 107 contains a noble sentiment with which I completely agree: the NHS Commissioning Board should focus on delivering better outcomes for patients. However, I hope to reassure the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Patel, that the clause covers this. The outcomes sought in subsection (3) are those specified in subsection (2), which are patients’ outcomes.

Amendments 16A and 109 again seek to alter the definition of quality, originally set out by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, this time in a slightly different manner. The aim of Amendment 16A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is clear; it is to emphasise the critical importance of efficiency in the NHS. I reassure the noble Lord that the importance of efficiency is well tackled elsewhere in the Bill. Under Clause 20, in new Section 13D, and Clause 23, in new Section 14P, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups respectively come under a duty to exercise their functions “effectively, efficiently and economically”. In this context, “effectiveness” relates to the overall effectiveness of the organisation, rather than to the effectiveness of the outcomes that both organisations must pursue in relation to their own duties to improve quality continuously. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will recognise that the sentiment behind the amendment is already well covered by the Bill, and that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 109 seeks to amend the NHS Commissioning Board’s duty in relation to quality under new Section 13E, in Clause 20, to include reference to “timely access to services”. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, may be pleased to know that I do not disagree with a lot of what he said about access. It is intimately bound up with the definition of quality. It matters to patients and can be a good way of predicting good outcomes. Timely access to services encompasses all three of the domains of quality. It is important that patients have timely access to services to ensure the clinical effectiveness of treatment. For example, where cancer is suspected, patients should see a specialist within two weeks of an urgent GP referral. Waiting times remain low and we continue to place an emphasis on this in the operating framework.

It is true that without timely access to healthcare you cannot have quality. It is intimately connected with delivering better outcomes for patients, better clinical effectiveness outcomes, better patient experience outcomes, and better safety outcomes. However, while I acknowledge all that, I believe that this all-encompassing definition of quality, combined with the rights that patients continue to have under the NHS constitution on access, makes this amendment unnecessary, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable in not pressing it.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 18B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. She makes an important point that in pursuing improved outcomes there should be no discrimination on grounds of age. Once again, I could not agree more with the intention and sentiment behind this amendment. None the less, I believe it to be unnecessary. First, the Bill places the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities between the people of England—the first time that we have had such a duty in statute. It is a landmark provision for a broad duty that encompasses all groups in society.

Secondly, as we discussed in the previous group of amendments, the public sector equality duty at Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires all public bodies to consider the impact of policies and decisions on particular groups across the “protected characteristics”—a term of art in the Act—that include age. This general public sector equality duty came into force in April this year. The noble Baroness mentioned that data are not available to measure outcomes for particular groups such as the elderly. I fully agree about the importance of having good data to drive improvement, but data for the over-75s are particularly difficult to collect. Mortality causes in this group are hard to pinpoint, which is why such data are of somewhat limited value as an accountability measure. The outcomes framework is designed to make services accountable. However, older people’s experiences and safety measures are included, and these indicators will of course improve over time. That is our stated ambition.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about NICE—

[Lord Winston]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to and rebuttals of many of these amendments, which he made with cogent force, and I found it difficult to disagree with them. However, in the case of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I have a problem. The issue of age is such a special case that there is a strong reason to consider writing her amendment into the Bill at this stage, because it is clear from what has happened historically and recently that aged patients are in a particularly difficult situation in an ageing community. They are often not communicated with and left unable to feed themselves, and people are not there to feed them, and so on. The Minister knows all this very well. Is there not a serious case for a caring Government to think seriously about the issues that the noble Baroness has raised?

[Earl Howe]

Of course there is, and I am grateful to the noble Lord. We are anxious to ensure, however, that any measures that we put in place in the outcomes framework are robust in terms of their verifiability. As I have said, I completely agree with the need for good data that have to underpin any system of accountability. I strongly feel that the Bill takes a significant step in the right direction. The NHS Information Centre will be the powerhouse for improving data in the NHS. It will look at how we can improve data for all age groups, not just the over-75s. I take on board what the noble Lord said. If I can add to what I have said, I should be happy to do so in writing.

I shall cover briefly the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about NICE. NICE is a body for which we have the highest regard. In the Bill, we are widening its duties and placing it on a much firmer statutory footing. I hope that that in itself will indicate to the noble Lord that, far from downplaying the role of NICE, we want to do the opposite. We are giving it responsibility for defining excellence in social care and for producing a library of quality standards, which it has already started to do. In connection with technology appraisals, we see it continuing to have a very important role. What the noble Lord may have heard on the grapevine, if I can put it that way, related to our plans for value-based pricing of medicines. If we succeed in defining a good system—a good framework—for value-based pricing, the role of NICE will inevitably shift somewhat, because it will be asked a slightly different question from that which it is asked at the moment, but it will retain an absolutely central role, particularly in the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medicines.

The noble Lord asked me about the concern that clinical commissioning groups would, as it were, be able to take their own decisions and perhaps disregard NICE guidance. We have made absolutely clear that the funding direction associated with NICE-approved medicines will continue, not only up to the end of 2013, which is when the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme comes to an end, but thereafter in the new world of value-based pricing.

I agree with the spirit of all the amendments, but I hope that noble Lords will accept from me that they are either not needed or would have an unintended and retrograde effect, which I have tried to outline. I hope that, with that, noble Lords will feel able not to press the amendments.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed comments and all noble Lords who took part, although some of them did not quite understand the meaning of my amendments. None the less, it was never my intention to have a narrow definition of “clinical”, and I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said: that it might give the impression that this is narrowly defined to medical standards. It is not; it takes into account both the well-being of the patient and, beyond that, rehabilitation and even social care, if we can define the standard.

My intention was never to press the amendments, but to try to highlight the issue that standards that are written are important if they are written with a view to focusing on patient outcomes. The phrase “clinical standards” tends to do that, and other standards have to incorporate that. If there was one benefit of this debate, it was that the noble Earl had to define the quality standards that NICE would be expected to write, which incorporates the patient journey of care from access to rehabilitation. That is exactly what I was hoping to achieve. By the way, I am familiar with NICE, having been involved at its inception and having written the paper that established it. Standards, whether they are quality standards of access or others, must focus on what gives a better outcome to the patient. On that basis, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendments 16 to 17 not moved.

Amendment 17A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 18 and 18A not moved.

Amendment 18B

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell]

18B: Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) These outcomes should not exclude sections of the population due to age.”

[Baroness Bakewell]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his thoughtful consideration of my amendment. Because this is so impending a situation, it has to be taken on board for the future. The noble Earl spoke about having data that were robust in terms of verifiability and about evidence for the over-75s being harder to come by. However, life expectancy in this country is 84 for women and 79 for men, so there are data somewhere. I reiterate that there is a growing groundswell of concern, evident in newspapers when the story goes wrong, about the National Health Service failing older people, and I am sure that the Minister is as keen as I am to see that end. I beg to move.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I completely understand the points that the noble Baroness has made and I am sure that there is general sympathy in this Committee for the issues that have been aired through successive reports. I refer not just to the Care Quality Commission’s findings but to those of the ombudsman relating to care for the elderly in both the NHS and care home settings. The noble Baroness should be in no doubt that this is very high on the Government’s list of priorities but, as she recognised herself, there are particular obstacles that we have to overcome before we can move forward in the way that she has indicated and that we all want.

[Baroness Bakewell]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18B withdrawn.

Amendment 19 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

House resumed.

UK Border Agency

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:47

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the United Kingdom Border Force, an operational division of the United Kingdom Border Agency.

The border force is responsible for ensuring that only legitimate travellers and goods are allowed to enter and leave the United Kingdom, while reducing threats, including illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorism. Border force activities include verifying the immigration status of passengers arriving and departing the UK; checking baggage, vehicles and cargo for illicit goods; and searching for illegal immigrants.

Border force officers confirm the identity of passengers arriving at the United Kingdom border, check passengers against a watch-list known as the warning index and undertake a visual inspection of passengers’ passports. Where a biometric passport is held, the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, is opened and verified. Non-EU passengers undergo additional checks. Officers establish whether a visa is required and whether a visa is held; if the passenger has a biometric visa, then a fingerprint database check can be made; and officers decide whether the passenger should be granted entry to the United Kingdom.

In the past, under the previous Government, some of these checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border. In the summer of 2008, warning index checks were suspended on EEA nationals—children and adults—on Eurostar services. At Calais, warning index checks were suspended on European economic area and UK car passengers—again, adults as well as children were not run against the index. Since 2008, at various ports and airports, this happened on more than 100 occasions.

Officials have told me that once, in 2004, local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made. To prevent this happening again, and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that the United Kingdom Border Agency could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers.

Initial options had been put to the then Security Minister and the Immigration Minister in January, and this resulted in proposals for a risk-based strategy coming to me in April. After further work, I agreed an amended and limited pilot scheme in July. That meant that, under limited circumstances, EEA national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warning index, designed to detect terrorists and serious criminals, when assessed by a border force official to be a credible risk.

The pilot also allowed, under limited circumstances, border force officials the discretion to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, on the passports of EEA nationals. Those circumstances were that the measures would always be subject to a risk-based assessment, that they should not be routine, and that the volume of passengers would be such that border security would be stronger with more risk-based checks and fewer mandatory checks than with more mandatory checks on low-risk passengers and fewer risk-based checks on high-risk passengers. The advice of security officials was sought and they confirmed that they were content with the measures.

I want everyone to understand what was supposed to happen under the terms of the pilot. In usual circumstances, all checks would be carried out on all passengers. Under the risk-based controls, everybody’s passports would be checked; visa nationals’ fingerprints would be checked; all non-EEA nationals’ biometric chips would be checked; all adults would be run past the warning index; all non-EEA nationals would be run past the warning index; and border officials would be free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chip of EEA passengers and free to use their professional judgment to check EEA children travelling with parents or a school group against the warning index.

The pilot was extended on 19 September and was due to end last Friday. The results are not yet fully evaluated but UKBA’s statistics show that, compared to the same period last year, the number of illegal immigrants detected increased by nearly 10 per cent.

Last week, John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, raised concerns with Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of UKBA, that security checks were not being implemented properly. On Wednesday, the head of the UK Border Force, Brodie Clark, confirmed to Mr Whiteman that border controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval. First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warning index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warning index at Calais, without ministerial approval. Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval.

I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of these decisions. Indeed, I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed. As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the warning index.

Following Mr Clark’s conversation with Mr Whiteman, the latter carried out further investigations and, on Thursday morning, he suspended Mr Clark from duty with immediate effect. The Home Office Permanent Secretary, the Immigration Minister and I were notified of his decision that morning. The pilot scheme, which had been due to end the next day, was suspended immediately. And on Friday two other border force officials, Graeme Kyle, director of operations at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of Border Force South and European Operations, were also suspended from duty on a precautionary basis.

There is nothing more important than the security of our border and, because of the seriousness of these allegations, I have ordered a number of investigations. Dave Wood, head of the UKBA Enforcement and Crime Group and a former Metropolitan police officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place. Mike Anderson, director-general of immigration, is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark and John Vine will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened across UKBA in terms of the checks, how the chain of command in the border force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future. For the sake of clarity, I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers. That investigation will begin immediately and will report by January. I will place the terms of reference for these inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

Border security is fundamental to our national security and to our policy of reducing and controlling immigration. The pilots run by the UK Border Force this summer were designed to improve border security by focusing resources at passengers and journeys that intelligence led officers to believe posed the greatest risk. The vast majority of those officers are hard-working, dedicated public servants. Just like all of us, they want to see tough immigration controls and strong enforcement, but they have been let down by senior officials at the head of the organisation who put at risk the security of our border. Our task now is to make sure that those responsible are punished and to make sure that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

16:55

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place. The security of our borders is of paramount importance and must be one of the first duties of any Government. It is becoming abundantly clear that the Government are failing in their duty in their oversight and stewardship of the UK Border Agency. The services it is providing are falling far short of what they ought to be. The public are understandably shocked at reports of serious security and immigration lapses by the UK Border Agency over the summer. They are the most serious and pressing of a catalogue of failures on immigration and border enforcement over the past 18 months, which include a six-fold increase in untraceable asylum applicants placed in the controlled archive.

The establishment of an independent inquiry is extremely important and welcome, as it is clear that the two internal investigations instituted by the Home Office would not have been sufficient. The first and crucial step must be to ascertain the implications of the lapses in security and passport controls. In particular, we need to know whether anyone posing a threat to Britain’s national security was allowed to enter the UK during the period in which the decision of Ministers to relax passport checks was taken further than the Home Office said was ordered. It is vital that passenger records are reviewed and a swift investigation undertaken covering the period when the checks were cancelled. We need to know if someone on a watch list entered the UK during this time so that the police and security services can take the necessary steps to protect the public.

The Minister said that Ministers agreed to a pilot scheme to allow border force officers to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers. However, UKBA officials—admittedly many of them anonymous—have been commenting across media outlets since the news broke. Essentially, they said that the length of queues and the lack of staff led to decisions in July to relax passport checks. Can the Minister confirm that Home Office Ministers asked officials to draw up a range of measures to cut queues at airports and ports during the summer holiday season because they were so concerned at the visible consequences of the cuts that they had made to the budget of the UK Border Agency?

The Statement emphasised that the measures agreed by the Home Secretary in July were subject to a risk-based assessment. Will the Minister give me an assurance that officials are not now being asked to carry the can for using the very discretion given to them by Ministers in July? The reality is that, instead of strengthening the checks year on year as all previous Ministers committed themselves to do, this Home Secretary decided to water them down as official government policy, even though Parliament had not been informed. Officials are now blamed for relaxing the checks further than the Home Secretary intended, but will the Minister confirm that it was the Home Secretary who gave the green light for weaker controls in the first place?

Will the Minister publish correspondence and papers from the Home Office and the UKBA around the decision that Ministers made in the summer and the effects that it had on border controls? The July guidance that relaxed passport controls should be published alongside any other memoranda explaining policy to UK Border Agency officials.

On the question of the independent inquiry, can I be assured that it will take into account the actions of Home Office Ministers and the effect of resource cuts on UKBA decision-making? To what extent have the state of affairs and the catalogue of errors at the UK Border Agency been a response to the budget cuts the agency has faced, including the reduction of thousands of staff and the pressure to cut queues during the summer period?

Since the Government came to power, they have piled new responsibilities on the UK Border Agency. We have debated the responsibilities on a number of occasions, not least in relation to the very misguided approach to the student visa programme. The UK Border Agency has had many responsibilities placed upon it at the same time as it has had to cut back drastically on its budget and on the number of staff that it has in place. Is that not what has now happened? The weakening of controls and the risk assessment are simply the clearest illustration of the failure of the Government to support the UK Border Agency effectively with resources, thereby putting the security of our nation at risk.

17:01

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, at least I can welcome the fact that the noble Lord welcomed the fact that we are making a Statement. He alleges that the Government are failing in their duty. I think that is a bit rich from the party opposite when one considers some of the failures that I outlined in the Statement made by the Home Secretary, which were failures of the party opposite when in government. We accept that there have been failings here, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up those two internal inquiries and, as she quite rightly emphasised, the third and most important external inquiry that will be conducted by John Vine.

As I made clear in the Statement, the terms of reference for both inquiries will be set out and placed in the Library, and I will make sure that the noble Lord gets copies. The draft terms of reference are still being discussed with John Vine, but they will cover a number of aspects, particularly investigating and reporting the level of checks operated at ports between 1 January and 4 November—Friday of last week—and fully reporting any potential adverse outcomes to border security created by any unauthorised relaxation. The noble Lord will be well aware that at this stage I cannot say whether anyone posing a threat snuck through on those occasions. That is what we hope John Vine will discover as part of his inquiry.

As I made clear in the Statement, initial results from the pilots that we discussed were fairly good. The problem was that although the pilots were authorised by the Home Secretary, quite rightly, in June of last year after extensive consultation—I could take the noble Lord at considerable length through the whole decision-making process, but that will come out in the inquiry—what seems to have happened is that certain officials went beyond what was agreed. My right honourable friend made it quite clear that they were not go to beyond what was agreed, which is why we are asking John Vine and others to look into this.

Again, I stress that my right honourable friend gave the authorisation for those pilots. We will publish the decision-making process as it is unearthed by John Vine as part of his inquiry. Again, my right honourable friend made that clear in her Statement. I shall quote her words to remind the noble Lord. She stated:

“I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers”.

I feel that that makes it as clear as can be to the noble Lord that we are not trying to cover up anything whatever. Nor are we asking officials, as he put it, to carry the can for ministerial decisions.

My right honourable friend made a decision about pilots, as I said. It is alleged that certain officials exceeded their authority. That is what we want to have examined and will have examined because the security of our borders is fundamental. I look forward to passing on copies of those inquiries to the noble Lord. As I said, John Vine hopes to report by January. We hope to have the initial report by Dave Wood in a somewhat shorter time. However, as the noble Lord said, the independent investigation by John Vine is far more important.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions to the Minister in order that as many noble Lords as possible have the opportunity to ask a question.

17:05

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will share with the House the extent of the pilot. Is there a link between that and the suggestions that we heard today in the media that staff were deployed in the wrong places? To give us some context, does he have information about the number of number of staff in the border agency workforce, the number who have already left and how many of them were on the front line? Finally, I wonder whether he might consider that the last two paragraphs of the Statement, which refer to “those responsible” being “punished” because they “put at risk … security”, may be a little premature in view of the investigations that are still to take place.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I again make it clear that these are only allegations at this stage. The individuals have only been suspended—two of them only on a precautionary basis. We will have to wait for the results of the independent inquiry. As to staff levels, I do not accept there has been a misdirection of staff in these matters. It is very important we use staff in the best manner possible. We all know that we have to reduce the size of the United Kingdom Border Agency. Over the spending review period it will have to lose some 5,000 or so posts. That is the nature of things when we have to deal with the cuts that we are faced with—and we know why we are faced with them.

We will make sure, as far as possible, that the staff are used in the best possible way. That was one reason behind a pilot of this sort. The initial report from the pilot seemed to indicate that it was doing rather well in terms of the increased numbers of people whom it was catching. Obviously we will have to wait for the result of John Vine’s inquiry.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that border controls were relaxed without ministerial authority because of the unacceptably long queues at ports of entry? If it is the case, as the Statement asserts, that,

“there is nothing more important than the security of our border”,

surely it should be the highest priority of this Government to ensure that the border agency employs sufficient staff to ensure that full checks can be carried out at all ports of entry without the unacceptable delays that cause the need for such measures to be adopted.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord would not want me to speculate on why certain individuals are alleged to have relaxed the rules beyond what the Home Secretary authorised in the pilot. That is the point of the investigation being mounted by John Vine. We look forward to that investigation in due course. I do not accept his second point that we have necessarily to maintain United Kingdom Border Agency staff numbers at the precise level that they have been for some time. The noble Lord will know that the numbers went up quite considerably when the Border Agency was created a few years back with the merger of a number of different agencies. We now have to reduce it in size but we will make sure that staff are deployed in precisely the right manner. That matter, too, will be covered by the investigation.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Is my noble friend aware that part of the problem of delays, which has been spoken about, is that the biometric machines installed at great expense at our airports, partly in order to speed up the process, in fact take a great deal longer? I speak as a regular weekly commuter and from experience. The technology is so defective that they take much longer than the old manual system. Is he further aware that when I flew into Gatwick last night the biometric machines there were not operating at all? When I asked the border official why they were not working, he said that he did not have a clue.

[Lord Henley]

I take note of what my noble friend has to say. We inherited these machines and will try to make sure they operate as well as we can. Whether it would be right at this stage to spend very large amounts of taxpayers’ money on installing new machines is another matter. Obviously, as my noble friend says, we want to reduce delays, because delays cause major annoyance to a great number of individuals and cause damage to business. We will do what we can. At the same time we need to maintain border security, which is one of the reasons why we want to make sure that biometric details on passports are properly read.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am not sure whether I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that there was a cut of 5,000 in the staff required, but no discussion about the effect of those cuts? It is a bit rich now to come to the House and say, “We’re going to try to find out the optimum number”. Surely that is a dereliction of duty.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course there has always been discussion about how many people are needed to maintain the appropriate level of protection at our borders. However, very difficult decisions have to be made in this, as they do regarding the police and other matters. Obviously, it might be a matter on which John Vine would also want to comment in his report. That is a matter for him: he is independent. The important thing is that Ministers made appropriate decisions at the time of the spending review about what was appropriate, which, in terms of making decisions, we have had to do across the whole of government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, while not wishing in any way to endorse the cuts in UK Border Force staff which have led to delays of up to three hours in clearance at Heathrow, I wonder whether this is not one of the few times when instead of Ministers being driven into resignation due to the negligence of civil servants, as happened with Charles Clarke, a civil servant is being required to take the rap. It is a precedent that I fully support.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the delays, the border agency is largely meeting the targets imposed on it. The noble Lord will no doubt have examples of some pretty severe delays, but in the main, at something like 95 per cent of all locations, the agency is processing individuals with the appropriate speed. As for the noble Lord’s final remarks, all we are saying is that it seems that this official, or these officials, went beyond what Ministers authorised. That is why this process is taking place.

[Lord Marlesford]

Does my noble friend agree that there have been repeated occasions when the incompetence of the Home Office immigration department has been denounced, going back to a time when the noble Lord, Lord Reid—who in my view was a very effective Home Secretary—declared the department not fit for purpose? On that occasion the head of the department was actually promoted to be Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. Is my noble friend aware that not only are we deeply disturbed by the apparent incompetence being revealed, but that there have been press reports over the weekend of criminal corruption at the heart of the service in the headquarters at Lunar House? That is deeply worrying. Will he add to the inquiry’s terms of reference the possibility of replacing the top operational command of this service, currently exercised by Home Office officials, with the appointment of retired military officers who have spent their professional lives defending the realm?

[Lord Henley]

On my noble friend’s first point, I am aware that there has been a certain amount of criticism over the years of the various controls that we have on our borders—going back, as he pointed out, to Mr John Reid, now the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others. We are trying to put that right. My noble friend also commented on criminal activity within the UK Border Force. No doubt they are only allegations at this stage, and are another matter that it will be permissible for Mr John Vine to look at in his review. As I said earlier, at the moment we are still discussing the draft terms of reference for the review, but I am sure that he would be more than happy to look at matters of that sort as well.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, is it not the case that Home Office Ministers frequently visit our border posts? In the circumstances, is it not surprising that they did not visit sites where these pilots were taking place—or if they did, that they did not notice or hear from the staff concerned how the pilots had been extended? Can the Minister also tell us what arrangements Ministers made to monitor the pilots and the way in which they were working?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, speaking for myself, I have to say that I have not visited any of the pilots, but then I have not been in the Home Office for that long. No doubt I will make inquiries of my honourable and right honourable friends and let the noble Lord know what visits have been made. However, I believe that Ministers have visited ports and airports on quite a regular basis to see how these things operate. I certainly was intending to do that at some point in the near future, but when I will be able to manage that is another matter. Of course Ministers always want to evaluate any pilot schemes they put into place, whether by visits or by other means.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that when the inquiries are over, the reports have been read and dissected and the dust has settled, we will not lose in that process the concepts of risk assessment and intelligence-led operations?

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is quite right to say that those are very important. It is obviously important that we do not burden every single individual with a full investigation as they go through. That is why we have different procedures for UK citizens and EU nationals in comparison with what we have for other people. There will always be a place for making decisions based on the perceived risk as seen by the individual officer concerned.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, few would argue with the principle of risk assessment and the targeting of resources more appropriately, but can the Minister tell us whether, as a result of the pilot, the total effort or quantum of scrutiny that went into protecting our borders was increased or reduced?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is early days for saying much about the pilot other than that it looks as though it achieved rather good results by focusing on the more high-risk people rather than on the lesser ones. However, no doubt we will be able to tell the noble and gallant Lord more in due course once the pilot has been fully assessed.

[Lord Skidelsky]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of Adam Smith’s famous remark that defence is more important than opulence. Does he agree that defence is also more important than austerity, and that the security of the realm should not be sacrificed to the cuts?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have not sacrificed the security of the realm to cuts either in this area or in other areas. However, I thank the noble Lord, as always, for bringing to my attention another bit of Adam Smith that I was unaware of, but then I was never quite as well educated as I ought to have been, if I had had the chance of sitting at the feet of the noble Lord at an earlier stage in my career.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, is it appropriate for my noble friend to tell your Lordships’ House by whom the biometric machines are manufactured?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, not without notice, but no doubt I will write to my noble friend.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, are there lessons to be learnt from the Israelis in this? While people are waiting to be assessed and interviewed by the immigration authorities, assessments are made and they are profiled, and of course in some cases they are targeted very successfully.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously, lessons are always to be learnt from all around the world. No doubt, if the noble Lord wishes it, we will look at the experience of the Israelis as well as that from other parts.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, one of the allegations made by the Home Affairs Select Committee was that at least 125,000 people have been lost in this country and can no longer be traced. There is no indication of what will happen to them. Would it not be wise to extend the scope of the inquiry to see why those illegal entrants are still in this country?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trying to take the inquiry on to other, equally important matters which should be looked at. We want John Vine to be able to report by January of next year. Therefore, he should focus on the issues in front of us—that is, why officials were going beyond what was authorised by Ministers, and what Ministers authorised.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on my suggestion that the Vine terms of reference should include the possibility of bringing in the retired military to run this service in the future?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that Mr Vine will have noted what my noble friend had to say. I am not going to comment at this stage.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

17:21

Amendment 20

Moved by

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

20: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“The Secretary of State’s duty to ensure transparency
After section 1A of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—“1B Duty to ensure transparency
The Secretary of State must act with a view to securing—(a) that any persons providing health services should provide, within as short a period as possible, full information to patients, their carers or representative about any incident or omission in or affecting their care which may have caused harm, or may in the future cause harm,(b) that regulations are introduced to enable the Care Quality Commission to take action against a registered person or body who fail to disclose details of such incidents as set out in those regulations.””

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, Amendment 20 would establish a duty of candour so that any provider of National Health Service services would have to inform a patient, or their family or next of kin if they died or lacked capacity, when something went wrong with their care or treatment that had led to harm or could cause harm.

The principle of “no decision about me without me” has been stressed. If the patient is to be central to the legislation, the amendment should be taken very seriously. I hope that your Lordships agree with me that there are always risks in the treatment of patients, but that there should be openness and transparency, with no cover-ups, when things go wrong.

There is currently no statutory requirement on providers of National Health Service services to tell a patient, or their carer or representative, when something has gone wrong during their care and treatment, while a host of compulsory standards are set out in statutory regulations. The issue is left to guidance and a non-binding requirement in the National Health Service’s constitution to have regard to the principle of openness. This has allowed cases to occur where NHS organisations have withheld such information from patients, delayed its release or, worse, actively covered it up.

Organisations concerned with patient safety have campaigned for a statutory duty of candour to rectify this situation. The Government have agreed that a duty of candour is required, but their preferred route is a contractual duty built into the standard contracts between commissioners and some providers of NHS services. Patients’ organisations do not believe that that is adequate. It would not include all NHS providers, only those with standard contracts, and would not create access to the sanctions that the CQC has at its disposal.

It is not just patients and patients’ groups who advocate a statutory duty of candour. Action Against Medical Accidents presents an impressive list of organisations and leading clinicians who support it. Just recently, at the Mid Staffordshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, Sir Liam Donaldson, the former Chief Medical Officer for England and internationally renowned champion of patient safety, reiterated his long-held belief in a statutory duty of candour. When asked directly, he said that he had always personally agreed that there should be a statutory duty of candour. He explained that he favoured it because he was of the view that professionals should be encouraged to take responsibility when they have done something wrong rather than withhold instances of harm. I believe that failure to commit to a more meaningful measure in this Bill will not only fail to have the desired effect, but is a snub and an insult to patients, patients’ groups and other experts.

There is little if anything in the Bill that is genuinely drawn directly from the priorities and wishes of patients. A commitment to a statutory duty of candour certainly would be. This is an opportunity to show that patients really are being listened to. If the Government agree that the requirement to be open really is fundamental and essential, why on earth would a different approach be taken to this essential requirement, with it being left to the commissioning process? Commissioners are simply not equipped to regulate issues of this kind. If one accepts the argument that this is the appropriate way to proceed, then all of the core standards currently in the CQC regulations could simply be dealt with in the standard contract for providers.

Another key weakness in the Government's proposal is that providers’ contracts relate only to NHS contracts with trusts, PCTs and private voluntary providers of NHS services. That would not include primary care practitioners such as GPs. The Government admit in their consultation document that GPs are subject to different arrangements and that the duty could be brought in only in negotiation with their representing organisations. Very significantly, the BMA General Practitioners Committee has already stated that it would not sign up to a duty of candour, but it should not be negotiable. A duty is a duty.

The Government’s proposed contractual duty of candour would be weak even where it did apply. It simply would not cover the area where so much NHS care is undertaken—in primary care.

17:30

As recently as June of this year, MPs on the Health Select Committee recommended, in their report Complaints and Litigation, that a duty of candour be included in the licensing arrangements with the Care Quality Commission. That is precisely what AvMA and others are arguing for.

Restricting the duty of candour to the contracting process diminishes its importance and impact and is inconsistent with how any other genuine “must do” is regulated. It is also offensive to patients, and undermines the principle of candour, that there is a statutory requirement in the CQC regulations for providers to report patient safety incidents to the CQC but no statutory requirement to report them to the patients affected. Inclusion of such a requirement in the CQC registration regime would cover all providers of NHS services—not just those with a particular form of contract—including dentists and, in due course, GPs.

We believe that creating a statutory duty of candour to provide a right for patients to know when things have gone wrong with their care and treatment is fully justified, would improve healthcare, would put the patient at the centre of health services and could, I hope, gain the support of the House. If the patient is to be central in this Bill, I can see no reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, when I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils, the message from community health councils around the country was that people who complained were seeking not compensation from, or retribution against, those who had perhaps caused the reason for their complaint—for example, the death of a loved one—but information. They wanted to know what had happened, and they wanted some reassurance that what happened to them or their relatives would not happen again.

Always, the most tragic cases were those in which people had not known what had happened and discovered the actual circumstances only much later, perhaps when their relative’s case came to an inquest or, in some cases, even long after that. I would like to hope that, in the 10 years or so since I was director of the Association of Community Health Councils, this problem would have become less, but it remains a serious blemish on the health service that, too often, such mishaps are covered up.

In a case reported only three weeks ago—the most recent case that I have come across, but I am sure there are many others—a mother discovered long afterwards that the death of her seven year-old daughter, which she had blamed on herself for not being able to perform the necessary first aid, was actually the consequence of a failure by a paramedic called to the scene. She discovered that only ages afterwards when she became aware of the transcript of the inquiry which led to the paramedic being dismissed. That case, reported in the Doncaster Free Press only three weeks ago, is an indication of the sorts of incidents that one is talking about.

I met the family of someone who had died while detained in a secure mental health facility. They discovered the circumstances in which their loved one had died only when the matter was reported at an inquest. In such incidents, the health service officials knew what had happened and had conducted their own inquiries but did not think it necessary or appropriate to tell the families concerned. That is why it is so important to have this amendment, which would place a statutory duty of candour on the health service, to make it something that runs right the way through the system.

Of course, accidents can never be eradicated. Healthcare is of its very nature a risky business and health professionals are only human, so these things will happen. However, what is unforgiveable is that the fact that something has gone wrong is not told to those concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, quoted Sir Liam Donaldson, but I thought that she was also going to quote the maxim that he gave:

“To err is human, to cover up is unforgiveable”.

That is precisely the concern that motivates this amendment.

In the White Paper Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS, the Government said that they will require hospitals to be “open and honest” when things go wrong. That stems directly, I think, from the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment, but, unfortunately, their manifesto referred only to hospitals rather than to the wider health service. I think that the Liberal Democrats intended that such a duty should be statutory, but my understanding is that the Department of Health is looking at this as something that could be written into contracts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has pointed out, having a lesser status than a requirement to inform a central agency that something has gone wrong would mean a lesser status in terms of informing the family. It is really important that we look at this issue and take it seriously, so I hope that the noble Earl will accept the amendment.

In 2005, a National Audit Office report revealed that only 24 per cent of NHS trusts routinely informed patients of a patient safety incident—that implies that more than three-quarters of NHS trusts do not do so routinely—and 6 per cent admitted that they never informed patients of a patient safety incident. Quite clearly, there is a “culture of denial”. Noble Lords may think that that is rather an alarmist statement, but I am simply quoting from a Department of Health document from 2006.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not want him to interpret my question as opposition to the general point that he is making, but before he finishes will he say a word about the role of lawyers of health service bodies in these circumstances? I am not a lawyer, as I have told the House before, but in both cases that he has cited I could see legal advisers saying, “Say nothing”. If we are to take this amendment seriously, we need to have some idea of what part the law might play if the Bill were to be so amended. As the noble Lord has experience, I would be grateful if he would reflect on that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, with all his experience—albeit, like me, as a non-lawyer—is speaking exactly the truth. In many of those cases, the legal advice would be, “Say nothing”. There therefore needs to be a statutory duty, because then the responsibility of the lawyers concerned would be to advise, “There is no option but to tell the patients or their families”.

An interesting point is that insurers in the United States often require open disclosure policies and practice by health providers to qualify for insurance. The international evidence is that, as well as being the right thing to do morally and ethically, being open and honest when things go wrong can actually reduce litigation and complaints.

My concern is that the Government will say that they are doing enough by saying that the duty of candour can be achieved through a contractual process. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has pointed out, this would apply only to hospitals with an NHS contract; it would not apply to GPs, dentists, pharmacists or private healthcare providers. I do not see why the duty of candour to patients and their families should be regarded as of lesser importance and impact than those things where there is direct regulation. I hope that the Minister will say that the Department of Health will take this away and that he will come back to the House with proposals to give a statutory duty of candour to protect the interests of patients.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

I, too, wish that there was not a need for this duty and that it was unnecessary. However, as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, there is a compelling case that now, more than ever, we need a duty of candour.

As has been said already, we know that accidents will never be eradicated, and nor will human error. We know that healthcare has risks—most people accept that—and that health professionals are only human. However, when things go wrong and they are caught up in things that can cause harm to patients, they need to be supported and helped to deal with a very difficult situation.

There has to be absolute clarity that anything less than complete openness and honesty when things go wrong is unacceptable in modern British healthcare. That is what I understand that the amendment is trying to achieve—a duty of candour.

In my previous life, I was a chief officer in a community health council. Unfortunately, I came across many cases in which a complaint was brought to me and, when we started to look into it, it became apparent that all was not what it seemed. It would often take months, if not years, to establish what had happened. For a family who has lost somebody or when something has gone badly wrong, that compounds the distress that is caused. It makes things worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, most people want to know. They just want information; they want to know the truth of what happened to their loved one. The last thing that they want is to find out, sometimes months or years later, that there has been a cover-up or they were given the wrong information. Sometimes, deliberately, the shutters simply come down because a trust fears litigation, as we have heard. Because of that fear, parents, patients and families are often left floundering in the dark and running to lawyers.

None of us can imagine losing a loved one as the result of an avoidable error and then finding out how the information had been kept from one. As has been said, there is no statutory requirement. It would come as a surprise and a shock to most of the general public that there is simply no requirement to be told when something goes wrong with any of our loved ones. The onus would be on them to find out and get to the bottom of it. Most patient groups that are campaigning for this are coming at it from real experience of having to take up some of the most tragic cases that we have heard about in recent years. The phrase “having regard to” the principle of openness is in the NHS constitution, but it is really not sufficient. It is not adequate to deal with the sort of cases that we have heard about.

Successive Governments have usually agreed that a duty of candour is a good thing and may be required, but so far there has been a failure to establish what that duty should entail. It is different from the contractual duty built into standard contracts between commissioners and some providers of NHS services. I believe that this is wrong; surely, honesty is the only policy in this instance. This should be a commitment to the protection of patients in healthcare and a legal duty of candour, which places a duty on all healthcare professionals to be open and frank with patients and their families. I was disappointed to read just last week that the GPC said that GPs would not back an openness clause in the GP contract, for example. I found that very disappointing.

17:45

There are many tragic examples of where things went wrong and guidelines were not followed—and also, as I have said, where trusts actively covered up. I cite one instance, as citing cases is very important so that we know what we are talking about and how people have suffered. Mayra Cabrera, who was 30, died of a heart attack one hour after giving birth to Zachary, a healthy 8lb baby, in May 2004 in the Great Western Hospital in Swindon, where she worked as a theatre nurse. A drip-bag containing a powerful epidural painkiller had been mistakenly connected into a line into her right hand instead of a saline drip. Although it became clear early on that the drug error had something to do with her death, there was an internal investigation and Mayra’s husband, Arnold Cabrera, was told that Mayra had died from a rare but natural event—an embolism. He was given no idea that something untoward had happened. It was not until some 14 months later, after a legal investigation had been instigated by his solicitors, that the circumstances were revealed. The records showed that in May 2004, as had been acknowledged internally, a drug error had been a contributory factor in Mayra’s death, yet no one at the trust had informed her husband. It is quite extraordinary that no one had a duty to do that. They did follow guidelines—they just did not do it. This is simply wrong. We need a consistent, strong, statutory procedure, not just guidelines, in order that this should happen automatically. It should run in parallel with a very strong, robust complaints procedure.

We have heard many arguments over the years that creating a statutory duty might make people more likely to cover up. It is simply not a credible argument to suggest that placing a statutory duty on an organisation to do everything reasonably practical to ensure that patients are dealt with openly and honestly will drive people to cover up. Where is the evidence for that? The proposal also includes requirements for organisations to treat their staff fairly and support them. However, everyone needs to understand that it is simply unacceptable to allow dishonesty over medical accidents. Sending the message that cover-ups may be tolerated, as the current arrangements could imply, can in no way support an open and fair culture. We have also heard the argument that the professional duty of all health professionals to be honest with patients means that a legal duty is unnecessary. Again, that does not cover other health professionals. It is contained in codes of conduct that apply only to certain health professionals, whereas it should apply equally to health managers and trust boards.

Many in your Lordships' House will be aware of the case of Robbie Powell, whose family have lent his name to the duty of candour. The GMC in that terrible case maintains to this day that the strong allegations of an attempted cover-up and forgery of medical records were not even important enough for it to waive its five-year rule and investigate. To change culture and behaviour, we need something stronger than just guidelines. It would send out a powerful and clear message about what is acceptable and not acceptable.

The simple principle at stake is the right of patients and their families and carers to know what has gone wrong with their care and treatment. It cannot be right that distressed, bereaved families have to resort to legal remedies for years and find out at the end of it that what they thought had happened had not happened. I have been told by patients’ families that I dealt with that it is like having a bereavement all over again. In the spirit of honesty, openness and transparency that we talk about a lot in the Bill, this proposal would ensure transparency—and, importantly, that patients and the public have complete confidence in the NHS.

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, I intervene at this point because I have all too real personal experience that may be helpful to the movers of the amendment. When she was still a teenager, my daughter was the subject of a terrible error made during a simple investigative measure. It was covered up by all concerned, who said what a tragedy it was that such a young girl should have got this illness, which was inexplicable. Because she was a private patient, we were able to bring in other advice that led to a conclusion which was that a very serious mistake had been made. She was hospitalised for three months. She suffered several operations as a result and, when she was finally recovering, we sought in law to get some kind of satisfaction.

We were not without means or influence, but no single lawyer would take the case. They said it was not in their interests because their main clients were usually health service providers or medical providers and therefore our case was not going to be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made the point that these people may or may not want to follow legal processes. I make the point that if that were one of the objectives of the amendment—which I hope it is not—they would have no chance whatever.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to do precisely what the noble Baroness has just done; namely, to draw attention to an individual case that might influence the judgment of the Committee. In a former incarnation as a Member of Parliament, I received in my post an anonymous letter from a person in the north of England, which made major allegations about a hospital in the north of England where a child had been badly brain-damaged as a result of negligence in that hospital. The letter was unsigned, as I say, and the child's name was not included. I had the task of asking around in the community to find out whether they know anyone who the child might be or whether they knew anybody in the hospital who knew about the incident that had taken place. I suspected that the letter had come from a member of staff.

After some time, I managed to identify a family. I knocked on the door and a lady answered. She said, “Yes, it was our child and the health service has basically converted our garage and put a bed in it”—for this boy who was very badly brain-damaged and remains so to this day. The family had been to lawyers and been advised that that was the best deal they could get. The reason why that happened was because there was no duty of candour and because the health service covered up what had happened. I told the family that they should go to Manchester and pick a very smart lawyer whom I knew and ask him to handle their case. It took six years, at the end of which there was a multimillion pound settlement covering a lifetime's provision of care for this child.

There are many cases of negligence in the National Health Service. I have probably spent more time in hospital in my lifetime than a large number of Members of this House put together and I have seen it myself. You hear stories in hospitals all the time when you are sitting in a bed, although some of them are not so much about negligence as stupidity. I wonder whether we are really being sufficiently transparent in the way we ensure that the information is made available to patients and their relatives. I hope that the amendment goes through.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I congratulate the movers of the amendment on the sincerity with which they and the people who supported it spoke. I think that I am going to make myself deeply unpopular both inside and outside this House by saying that I am implacably opposed to the amendment. It is a profound mistake and its wording is quite inadequate and actually very dangerous for patients.

I say this because I have spent some 25 or 30 years of my practice in a secondary referral centre, where I have seen patients from all over the United Kingdom and outside it being referred because they had surgery and other treatments that were botched, mistaken or not properly done and that caused problems. From my serious experience of occasions when I was much younger, telling patients that the thing had not been properly done was often a profound error. It caused immense distress and continued to cause problems afterwards when there was no legal redress possible in any case, as there often is not. By presenting patients to a court, you often add to the distress that might be caused to them and the tensions that they have to go through. The problem with this amendment, good though its intentions are, is that it will increase that risk in the health service.

I do not wish to be anecdotal because I do not think it is appropriate. I could tell numerous anecdotes, rather than just one or two, from a surgeon's perspective to show why I am highly suspicious of this amendment. I will say one thing about why I feel so strongly about this. When you as a doctor give a second opinion on somebody who you believe has been badly treated, there is invariably a degree of subjectivity in your assessment because you are not in the situation that the previous person was in. The amendment refers to,

“any incident or omission in or affecting their care which may have caused harm”.

This is highly dangerous. I believe that it would cause massive problems to a large number of patients and I hope that the noble Lords who tabled it will think seriously before pressing it this evening.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as a former Member of Parliament. I am guessing that anyone who was a Member of Parliament for any length of time could, through their constituency casework, repeat the sort of story to which he referred; so I will not burden the Committee by adding similar types of anecdote, other than to say that we cannot all be wrong. Up and down the country, people are going to see their Members of Parliament and saying, “We have a problem that we can’t get past”. There has to be something in the system that is not working right. Like other ex-Members of Parliament, I have from time to time tried to intervene, but the fact that I was a Member of Parliament made virtually no difference whatever to the health authorities. Maybe you would argue that Members of Parliament were the last people they would tell, but they were not going to tell anybody.

Having said that, I also agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just said. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will not take this amiss—I will come to my view in a minute—but I do not think that this amendment is the right amendment. Perhaps I may read to her just a few words:

“full information to patients, their carers or representative about any incident or omission”,

that may affect their care. That has been taken to refer to a major problem—a life-threatening problem, a permanent disability or disfigurement problem—but, actually, it could also refer to the numerous stories that appear in our national newspapers, week in and week out, about the absence or inadequacy of nursing care for the elderly. Those are incidents and omissions that affect their care. An amendment that is that wide in its potential scope seems to me to require further thought. It might be described, to use my example, as inadequate nursing care—and, incidentally, I speak as the husband of a qualified nurse—but the nurses do not appear to think that it is inadequate, because it keeps on happening. The management does not think that it is inadequate, because it keeps on happening. The boards of the hospitals do not seem to think that it is inadequate, because it keeps on happening. So, identifying at that level what this amendment might mean seems very difficult.

18:00

I come to the central point. I share the view of those who believe that more candour is required. I hope that my noble friend will take this away and look at it again in the context of reaching out to those delivering NHS services, not just to some of them. The legal point is a real stumbling block. If you are a professional paying a lot of insurance against medical cover or if you are running a big hospital and paying a lot of insurance health cover, then lawyers are important. We can be dismissive of lawyers and say “transparency reigns, OK”, but in the real world lawyers also reign, OK. If I may say so to my noble friend, your Lordships’ House needs help on this issue. Do not make us pick between the reality of the need for candour and the reality of the professional job that lawyers are doing to protect their clients. Instead, I ask my noble friend to bring forward a more comprehensive view, perhaps with mediation at its heart. Even in this debate we have heard about people who did not want a lot of money or retribution; they just wanted to know. That rings bells in my head about mediation. Perhaps if a mediation type of arrangement were included in all of this, the problems with the lawyers would be so reduced that the NHS could handle it.

Let me cheer up my noble friend. I can remember my time in Richmond House, with the escalation of money that we had to set aside year by year as more legal cases went to the courts. That was a genuine problem; it was money that was not going to be available for patient care on a day-by-day basis. There are two real issues here. I think we can solve them not in terms of the Bill, either in the way it is written or, with due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in the way that she is seeking to amend it, but rather by asking the Minister if he can come back with a more comprehensive and coherent strategy for dealing with this problem. I hope that he will put mediation somewhere near the centre of it.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who has given the Minister some very positive and practical advice. When the Minister responds to this debate he will probably say something similar to what he said at Second Reading, where he was very clear that the Government agree that there should be a duty of candour. The question is about how best to deliver that. As I understand it, the Government have launched a consultation about how to deliver a duty of candour through the contractual means that noble Lords have already alluded to. There seems to be agreement around the House; the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggests that he is unpopular, but he too accepts that there is an issue we need to address.

I believe that the consultation on the contractual route finishes on 2 January. I do not know how that fits in with our Committee timetable, but it would be helpful for the Committee to see how my noble friend’s amendment could be worked through in a more practical way. My noble friend Lady Masham has spoken very eloquently about issues of deep concern to patient organisations in this country, and we have to do better than a contractual route. Patients have a right to know when something goes wrong, and in this country’s NHS we need a system, a process, that allows health professionals to admit when something goes wrong in an environment that can learn from those mistakes. Where there are errors and where professional misconduct takes place then of course action must be taken, but it is important that there is openness so that the system can learn and these errors can be stopped from happening again. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made the point about patients and others not always seeking legal redress but in many cases looking for an apology and an assurance that the mistake will not happen to anyone else.

I am sure that the Minister will be persuaded by this debate that we need a more practical and constructive way forward. I appreciate his comment in his response at Second Reading where he said that it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the consultation that finishes on 2 January and to amend the Bill before the Government have a chance to respond to the consultation. That may coincide very well with Report stage—I do not know what the timetable is like—but I hope that the two can dovetail and help my noble friend Lady Masham with her cause in this amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others, and applaud the powerful and eloquent way in which she opened the debate and in which others have spoken.

I wish to make a brief contribution regarding the litigation consequences of a lack of transparency. Over a number of years, though not in the immediate past, I conducted clinical negligence cases, many of which concerned allegations of negligence against practitioners and organisations within the health service. I am not one of those who regard such litigation as frequently the result of an unwelcome development of a compensation culture within this country, approaching the situation in the United States. Without generalising, in most of the cases in which I have been involved— certainly those that came to trial—there has been a real basis for concern on the claimant’s part, whether or not the claimant has ultimately been successful.

With respect to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I remember cases where the process of litigation itself demonstrated not only that that particular claimant had been poorly served but that there had been systemic failings within aspects of the health service that required changes to be made. When those changes were then made, they brought substantial benefit to subsequent patients.

A feature of much of the early litigation in which I was involved, though, was that it was frequently very difficult to obtain full records and a full account of the history from the point of view of the defendants within the NHS providers, and of course they alone were in possession of the relevant information. That is against the background that for many years there has been a procedure for obtaining the disclosure of relevant documents from potential defendants to these actions, even before the actions are commenced.

In recent years, procedures have been greatly improved by the impact of the clinical negligence protocol, introduced in 1999 as part of the Woolf reforms. However, the protocol is not binding, although it introduces a code of good practice and provides a partial answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. The code requires a comprehensive system of what it calls adverse outcome reporting. It requires clear and comprehensible information to be given to patients, and for advice to be provided to patients on any serious adverse outcome and the options available to them. In such cases, access to records is to be given to patients within 40 days of a request. The protocol has done a great deal when it is fully observed. However, the fact that it is not always observed is clear from many of the speeches that we have heard this evening.

A further point is that the protocol applies only in cases where there is a serious adverse outcome for patients. Furthermore, it is only a code and does not impose statutory requirements. Even in serious cases, and where the code is followed, requests for documents and pursuit of the procedures generally involve lawyers, and this process can be lengthy, time-consuming and expensive. If not well handled, the process can tend to harden and entrench positions, making conflict and, therefore, contested proceedings more likely. Furthermore —this is another point I make to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney—the process is not effective in less serious cases but this amendment would apply in such cases, although there is a limit to it. It refers only to cases that,

“may have caused harm, or may in the future cause harm”.

The cost of negligence cases to the NHS is simply staggering. According to a Written Answer given in the other place on 8 June this year, the total in damages paid to successful claimants in 2010-11, including in periodical payments cases—which are treated in the figures as lump sums—exceeded £1 billion. The total of claimants’ costs paid out was around £214 million, and the total of defendants’ costs was £72 million. If improvements in transparency could be made to reduce these vast amounts, particularly the costs, they would be very welcome. As my noble friend Lord Mawhinney pointed out, all the money spent on costs is money that might have been made available for healthcare.

In a large number of cases, as the protocol recognises and as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and others have pointed out, what claimants and potential claimants want is to know at a very early stage what has happened to them—to have someone explain frankly exactly what has gone wrong and then, where appropriate, to have someone apologise for any errors. Anything that helps to bring about a more effective way of ensuring that that happens will avoid many cases that currently end in litigation. As a result, many patients will be far better served. Therefore, there is much to be said, across a range of cases, for establishing far better procedures than there are now to ensure that full explanations are provided in a timely fashion.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Would an apology affect the litigation?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, often it would. If there is to be litigation, an apology tends to suggest an admission of liability. Generally speaking, people do not apologise when they do not think that anything has gone wrong. An important exception to that—one that I have come across—might be where there is an admission of liability and that something has gone wrong, but a dispute over the consequences or what damage might have been suffered. If there would have been adverse consequences to an operation in any event, the fact that it went wrong might not make a difference. However, in those cases the apology might well avoid the litigation because of the difference in attitude and spirit between the parties that results from the apology being made and the recognition that something has gone wrong.

I suggest that we should welcome this amendment. It elevates good practice, as shown by the code, to an enforceable statutory duty of candour, as the noble Baroness points out, backed up by sanctions. It may be that this precise wording is not what is required but I invite the Minister to consider the statutory duty of candour as an important help for future patients. I welcome this amendment as going some way to helping that to happen.

18:15

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in my contribution. As a former practising doctor and neurologist, I am fully aware of the immense distress and concern that patients, and often their families, have experienced as a result of medical accidents in the broad. It is clear that there are certain circumstances in which episodes construed as being so-called medical accidents have been the inadvertent effects of treatments that have had completely unforeseen complications, for which no one could possibly be held responsible.

When I was a young doctor, the medical protection groups—the Medical Defence Union and the Medical Protection Society—always recommended that if an error occurred, under no circumstances should one apologise in such terms as to constitute accepting liability. However, when I was president of the General Medical Council, the concerns that have been so eloquently expressed around this Committee, particularly by my noble friend Lady Masham in her opening speech, led to a gradual and significant change in attitude. After regular consultations with the medical protection bodies, the General Medical Council eventually recommended, and still recommends, a duty of candour on doctors to apologise and explain in depth if accidents and errors have occurred. This is, I believe, still part of the advice that the GMC gives.

Having said that, I understand and sympathise deeply with the purpose that underlies this amendment. However, in several respects it is very difficult to make its wording the basis of a statutory requirement. In particular, proposed new paragraph (b) states that,

“regulations are introduced to enable the Care Quality Commission to take action against a registered person or body who fail to disclose details of such incidents as set out in those regulations”.

This could cut across the responsibilities of the statutory regulatory authorities—the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council—and I simply could not accept the wording of that part of the amendment. Therefore, I have great sympathy with the view that something might well be done to reinforce the advice that is being given by a regulatory authority such as the GMC to enforce the duty of candour. However, sadly, the amendment in its present terms would not fulfil that very worthy objective.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, an apology is not, of itself, an admission of liability. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for allowing me to put that into English law, if I can update the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on it.

I come at this question from a slightly different angle. My familiarity is with doctors who have blown the whistle and had their careers destroyed as a result. That, too, has its roots in a lack of internal candour. I want to see the health service become more constructively self-critical, and for the mistakes and wrong judgments that have been made to be the subject of ordinary conversations within a hospital or other medical organisations, so that better care is provided in the future. This is the way it is in schools. Teachers are generally pretty open about things that have gone wrong and look to find ways of doing things better, but they do not tell parents about it. You can look at schools that have improved from 20 per cent to 80 per cent of students achieving five GCSE grades of between A and C. The kids are the same and the intake is the same. That school has failed thousands of children but no one has ever admitted that to the parents, which is very hard to do. In fact, it would tend to freeze any kind of internal self-critical attitude, particularly if the duty was drawn as widely as it would be in this amendment.

I therefore find myself siding with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in this, although I am very committed to candour. Candour needs to be there, particularly in something as dangerous as medicine, where you are skiing down the edge of a precipice for half the time. You cannot be blamed when things go wrong because mistakes are bound to happen under those circumstances. Downhill skiers crash; they do not intend to do that and are well trained not to—but it happens. This spreading of blame for every slight mistake or wrong judgment taken in the circumstances of surgery or something with a longer timescale, such as pharmacology, is not the right way to approach the issue. We need to find ways of being open and of encouraging professionals, in particular, to be open with each other in a culture of self-improvement. To expose all this to litigation and in effect to encourage patients to go to law whenever something goes wrong, under circumstances where it is inevitable that a large number of things will go wrong, would be a mistake.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The experience within the NHS is that people go to law only because they feel that that is the only way in which they are going to get some clarity into what has actually happened.

[Lord Winston]

That is not so.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sorry; I hear someone behind me saying that that is not so. My experience in my 12 years of leading the national consumer organisation representing patients in the NHS was that that was precisely the circumstance in which many people went to law. They went to law because they wanted to get the information. That was the fact, and I suspect that that is the reality.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

Perhaps I may add a few words on an aspect that was touched upon only a moment or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—the role of people who act as whistleblowers, particularly regarding patients who, for one reason or another, are not capable of standing up for themselves, are perhaps in institutions where they get little attention paid to them, and are not much listened to. They would be heavily dependent on the willingness of NHS staff to blow the whistle when bad standards are being allowed to continue.

One thing has always worried me about the NHS. As a parliamentarian of many years’ standing, I have received many letters from junior members of NHS staff asking me to look into some aspect of a hospital or care home in which they work, and almost invariably saying at some point in the letter, “I dare not do this myself because my job would be at risk”. This is a very serious aspect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but we have not talked about it very much at all.

I tend to favour the idea proposed by my noble friend Lord Mawhinney for having an element of mediation, as well as an element of court behaviour, in the way in which we deal with such cases. However, it rests on us all to give high priority to thinking of the ways in which we can protect whistleblowers and distinguish the genuine whistleblowers from those who are complaining merely about their personal position. For example, if we included private as well as NHS hospitals and care homes, the kind of position that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, talked about—she described a terrible case with regard to her daughter—would not arise so readily.

I ask the Minister to say something about the view that mediation is one way forward, as well as court cases. At least as importantly, perhaps he can say whether the General Medical Council or others would now seriously consider protection for whistleblowers within NHS staff, who are often the most effective inspectors that we can find—much more effective than people with no clear knowledge of the way in which medical and health services work.

[Baroness Hollins]

Perhaps I may raise a couple of issues that have been touched upon. The first is that I do not know how far the consultation that is looking at the duty of candour will tease out the role played by whistleblowing. I should like some clarification about that.

The General Medical Council’s document, Good Medical Practice, in paragraph 31, makes it clear that doctors must be honest and open and act with integrity. I mention that because my noble friend Lord Walton spoke about the GMC’s role and said that he was not sure how far the medical defence unions currently adopt the same approach to encourage doctors, when they are aware of an error, to be open and honest. I decided to telephone my medical defence union before this debate and ask it for its current advice. It said that it refers doctors to Good Medical Practice and reminds them of paragraph 31, which states that they must be honest and open and act with integrity. I hope that the House will be reassured to hear that.

In my experience, a culture of openness and honesty leads to a culture of learning. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords. We should not be afraid of the idea that apologising will in some way lead to a greater culture of litigation. It is certainly my experience that being open and apologising does not necessarily imply negligence; it reflects the fact that something harmful has happened and that the lessons from mistakes must be learnt from in order that other people will not be harmed by the same mistakes in the future. That is what this is really about.

[Lord Winston]

Does the noble Baroness not agree with me, however, that this is not what this is about? The problem is that any persons providing healthcare—someone who is seeing a patient but is not concerned with the original treatment—would be required to be open and candid. The problem with that is that it is likely to be highly dangerous and damaging to patients in that situation, as extensive medical experience over many years has shown to the many people trying to do an honest and open job within the health service. The matters of each case have to be looked at on an individual basis.

[Baroness Hollins]

I absolutely agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Commenting on another practitioner’s practice and making judgments is fraught with error. That is why it is important when looking at the duty of candour to understand the role that whistleblowing plays. A great deal more could be said but it is extremely dangerous to make assumptions about another person’s practice.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I was not intending to intervene in this debate, but after listening to the discussion I want to remind the Minister of the many happy hours that we spent taking the NHS Redress Bill through this House six or seven years ago. Can he tell us the extent to which some of the measures in that Act may or may not have helped to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate, because that legislation was an attempt to give patients more satisfaction without going to court and to encourage a greater culture of openness and apology on the part of the NHS when it made mistakes?

18:30

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the excellent work of the charities, Action against Medical Accidents, National Voices and the National Association of LINks Members on this important issue. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords who have supported and sponsored the amendment and have spoken so forcefully in favour of it. They have put forward the strong arguments for a statutory duty of candour, and I do not intend to go over them or to repeat the detail of the many harrowing cases that have led to the huge support among the general public and patients' organisations for the measure.

The instances of serious failure in care and treatment that have led to the campaign in support of a statutory duty of candour are dramatic, shocking and deeply tragic. The need to ensure openness and transparency of instances of patient care which lead to harm or adverse impact on the patient's future care quality of life apply to both those major cases and to everyday care and treatment solutions. I am sure that, in respect of the latter, many of us will have had personal experience of pursuing instances of poor care and treatment, communication and ordination of services, through the PALS hospital complaints system, only to find how quickly the shutters come down, as has been said, and how hospitals can seem to go into automatic denial and obfuscation as soon as an event occurs.

This is a probing amendment. On behalf of the Front Bench, I urge the Government to look closely at the issue and respond positively on how the Bill can be strengthened to enshrine the right of patients, their carers and families to know when things have gone wrong. In April 2010, my Government established responsibility for the Care Quality Commission to require health providers to report incidents which harm patients to the national reporting system of the National Patient Safety Agency. We recognise that that was a first step. The requirement to report the incident to the patient within a specified period would be a major second step that should be considered to ensure that all information about such incidents is shared with the patient and their family.

Many, both inside and outside the Chamber, have worried about the extent to which patients actually feature in the Bill and whether it will really achieve the Government's objective for patients of “no decision about me without me”. Surely, underlining in the Bill the rights of patients to be truly involved in decision-making about their care, to participate in decisions about their future treatment, and to be told honestly and openly when something goes wrong should all be part and parcel of the “no decision about me without me” mantra.

There is clearly growing momentum and enthusiasm for the current CQC regulations to be extended to provide a related duty to share all information about incidents which cause harm with the patient concerned or their family. As we have heard, the House of Commons Health Select Committee in June of this year specifically recommended that a duty of candour to patients from providers also be part of the terms of authorisation from Monitor and of licence by the CQC.

As for the Government’s consultation on how a proposed contractual duty of candour should be implemented, it is regrettable that the consultation does not allow for consideration of whether the duty should have a different status. The concerns of the Health Committee and patient groups that a contractual duty alone will not be effective need to be addressed. A powerful argument for the duty being in the CQC registration requirements is that that would then cover all providers, not just those with a standard NHS contract.

The consultation document does not adequately address a number of issues in relation to the proposed contractual duty. For example, it does not make clear how the Government envisage a contractual duty working in practice; or how commissioners should act when a provider has failed to be open; or what effective remedial measures they will be able to take.

We recognise that further work needs to be undertaken on the amendment. For example, the CQC powers should not interfere with or duplicate the role of the health staffs’ professional regulatory and disciplinary bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, and other noble Lords have spoken about their concerns. This is a probing amendment. It is designed to raise issues and to seek ways to take the matter forward.

It has been an excellent debate. We strongly support the suggestions that noble Lords have made on taking this matter forward, and we urge the Minister to give urgent consideration to them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, Amendment 20, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, looks to place a new duty on the Secretary of State to ensure transparency when something goes wrong in the treatment of a patient. I hope that she feels gratified by the quality of the contributions to which we have listened this afternoon.

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other noble Lords that ensuring full candour on the part of the medical, nursing and allied professions and NHS organisations is essential. We know that achieving an open and honest system is vital to ensure that the health service learns from its mistakes and that patients and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I take no issue with the powerful arguments from noble Lords about the need for openness and candour between health professionals and patients. That is a real concern.

To emphasise that, in our response to the Future Forum’s report we made a clear commitment to introduce a duty of candour—a new, contractual requirement on providers to be open and transparent in admitting mistakes. This will be the first time that such a requirement has been specified in contractual agreements with providers. Contracts are increasingly the key way in which providers will be held to account for the quality of the care that they are providing by those who best understand local healthcare—clinicians and patients. The contracts give the people who are actually spending NHS money on behalf of their populations the power and the levers to require quality improvement and to scrutinise the performance of providers. Therefore, placing a duty of candour in the NHS and contracts reflects the importance we place on the issue. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that it is somehow a snub or an insult to patients, as she put it. Nor do I think that it is an obligation with a lesser status than a statutory obligation would be.

Accordingly, I support the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I do not agree that the most effective way to achieve it is through a duty set out in the Bill. The amendment suggests that the Care Quality Commission should have a role in ensuring that health service providers comply with a duty of candour. However, we do not believe that the CQC overseeing compliance would be the most effective way to underpin a new requirement. The CQC itself has said that it would not be able to enforce such a duty routinely and that it would not fit in with its role as a risk-based regulator.

The Government want the duty of candour to be as effective as possible in promoting openness. Rather than rushing to insert what may be an ill-thought-through and impractical duty in primary legislation, we are currently consulting on how best to implement a duty of candour through contracts with commissioners. The consultation explores how we can best support patients and clinicians to demand candour from healthcare organisations and how commissioners would enforce and report publicly on it. If appropriate, there may be an opportunity in future to include such information in the CQC's quality and risk profiles. Incidentally, I encourage the noble Baroness to take part in the consultation, if she has not already done so. The consultation also explores what we should expect commissioners to report publicly in terms of their enforcement of the requirement. As I said, if appropriate, there may be an opportunity in future to ask the CQC to report on that.

Transparency is important, but I assure noble Lords that measures are already in place to ensure transparency within the NHS. For example, as has been mentioned, clinicians have a professional duty to act openly and admit mistakes. In addition to their professional duty, the NHS Constitution sets out the responsibility of health service staff to aim to be open with patients, their families, carers and representatives, including if anything goes wrong. The majority of clinicians are open with their patients and will, despite the difficulty of the conversation, admit mistakes to patients, so patients receive an apology. Where openness does not happen, it is usually as a result of a closed culture that exists within an organisation rather than a case of individual clinicians simply covering things up. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins: clinicians must be able to work in a supportive environment where they are encouraged to admit mistakes and learn from them. It is this culture that we aim to foster in the NHS. The question is how best to promote that culture.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Before he leaves the commissioning issue, would the conditions on candour laid down in the contracts apply to contracts with new providers who came from the private sector as well as to those from the old NHS sector?

[Earl Howe]

Our intention is that any provider supplying services to NHS patients should be subject to this duty of candour in the contract, but my noble friend will know that we are consulting on how best to do this.

[Baroness Wheeler]

Perhaps I may ask the same question about clinical commissioning groups and GP contracts.

[Earl Howe]

I will come on to talk about GPs and primary care providers in a moment, if the noble Baroness will bear with me. I listened with great care—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will this cover private contractors where they provide a service to the National Health Service? What would happen in a dual provision facility whereby, let us say, half the clients were private and the other half were from the National Health Service? Would this provision apply only to those who were in effect being funded by the National Health Service?

[Earl Howe]

Clearly, our concern is for NHS patients. We cannot legislate for private patients who may have completely different terms in the contract. However, the point is that if an independent provider comes forward as an accredited provider for the health service, we should subject that provider to exactly the same kinds of duties that apply to an NHS provider.

I was about to say that I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, who I thought spoke wise words in their respective speeches. We have made it clear that we think that services should be commissioned by those who are closest to patients and who best understand the needs of their patients—the clinicians. Therefore, we think it is right that the duty of candour is set out in the contracts that clinical commissioning groups will enter into with service providers. CCGs will be responsible for holding providers to account and therefore will in any case need to consider patient safety events in doing so. In future, the Secretary of State will ensure that this contractual duty is introduced consistently, as the Bill already contains powers for the Secretary of State to set standard contractual requirements where necessary using “standing rules” regulations under new Section 6E of the National Health Service Act, inserted by Clause 17.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, suggested that there was nothing in the Bill about patients. I confess that I am disappointed that she has come to that conclusion, as the Bill is all about creating a patient-centred health service—for example, through placing clinicians at the forefront of commissioning, strengthening patient involvement and ensuring that quality is at the heart of all that the NHS does. She suggested that if a duty of candour were in the contracts, perhaps all CQC standards should also be in the contracts. I disagree. A duty of candour is best suited to the contract because, first, the CQC has specifically stated that it is unable routinely to enforce such a duty, unlike the contents of its core standards. Secondly, the issue is very difficult to monitor effectively. Placing the duty closer to patients and clinicians maximises the chances of it working, and placing it in contracts does exactly that.

I would not want the noble Baroness to think that we have chosen the contracting route as in some way a lesser option, showing that this issue is not of importance to the Government. That is absolutely not the case. We propose a contractual duty of candour because we feel strongly that it has the best chance of working. If I may say so, I believe that the noble Baroness has been rather too quick to dismiss the Government’s proposals, which, I say again, represent a considerable advance on the current position.

It has been pointed out that the contractual duty will apply only to providers with an NHS contract and that GPs, for example, without a standard contract will not be covered. We have explicitly acknowledged that primary care contractors will not be covered under the current proposals for a requirement in the NHS standard contract, and we have asked for views on this as part of the ongoing consultation. We recognise that we should aim for an holistic system that applies to every provider of NHS-funded services, but we still need to consider what legislative and contractual changes will work best within primary care.

It should also be remembered more widely that the policy of openness still applies to all NHS services, regardless of the existence of any contractual requirement. For example, primary medical services contractors must have regard to the NHS constitution, the professional codes of conduct and any guidance issued by PCTs or the Secretary of State. Once they are registered with the CQC, a failure to be open with patients will contravene clear expectations set out in CQC guidance. Therefore, not including a requirement in primary care contracts now does not provide a reason for primary care contractors to avoid telling their patients about things going wrong with their healthcare.

18:45

My noble friend Lord Marks spoke with his customary experience and legal background about the effect of a duty of candour on negligence claims. He made some very interesting remarks about this, and I think he would agree that it is a complex issue. The evidence is split on the effect of a duty of candour. We are aware of studies from the United States on this topic, including work undertaken at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, and we will continue to monitor this area as further evidence becomes available. However, I can cite one example that is also from the United States. Pennsylvania has a duty to notify patients in writing if a serious event has occurred. Feedback from the Pennsylvania Department of Health on that duty to notify suggests that there are unintended consequences. Experience suggests that a likely behavioural change is towards challenging definitions of a serious event and not apologising. Lawyers may try to twist the definition of a serious event so that the hospital is legally not required to send a letter. In the case of Pennsylvania, the cause of this seems to be an ambiguous definition of serious event. Therefore, this is not without its hazards.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

On the noble Earl’s point about GPs who are not employed by the National Health Service and the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about NHS patients and private patients, does he agree that the professional regulatory authorities impose a duty of candour on those professionals, irrespective of whether they work in the NHS or in the private sector? The same duty imposed by the recommendations of regulatory bodies applies to all.

[Earl Howe]

I agree with the noble Lord. In fact, the GMC sets out in its Good Medical Practice the following:

“If a patient under your care has suffered harm or distress, you must act immediately to put matters right, if that is possible. You should offer an apology and explain fully and promptly to the patient what has happened, and the likely short-term and long-term effects”.

Therefore, the noble Lord is quite right: this would apply whether a doctor was treating an NHS patient or serving in a private capacity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way yet again on this perhaps longer than expected debate. Although we have clarity about the duty placed by the General Medical Council on individual doctors, which is obviously helpful, the noble Earl gave us an example from the United States where in essence it is not that doctors conspire to keep material from the patients but that the management of the institution finds different ways to get round the duty to report an incident. The reason for saying that a very clear duty needs to be placed on them is management cover-up, which so often takes place when things go wrong.

[Earl Howe]

That is exactly why I referred to the need for a culture of openness rather than encouraging a situation in which we simply try to catch people out when they are not open. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness looks to me like yet another way for people to get into trouble, rather than a way in which an organisation can take ownership of things that go wrong, encourage openness and look in-house to put things right. That is my fear about the amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked whether the consultation that we are undertaking covers whistleblowing. No, the consultation is focused on the duty of candour; whistleblowing is a separate, but linked, issue. Since coming to office, we have, as she may know, taken a number of important steps to promote it in NHS settings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about the timing of the consultation response. She is right to say that the consultation finishes on 2 January. The government response will follow in due time after that. Unfortunately, I cannot be more specific. I shall be happy to write all noble Lords upon publication of the government response and I encourage noble Lords to take part in the consultation before it closes.

My noble friends Lord Mawhinney and Lady Williams referred to mediation. I take their point. They will know that mediation can mean a number of different things. As part of the proposed contractual requirement, we suggest that providers will have to offer an apology and an explanation and provide further information as appropriate, all in person with the patient, their representative, the relevant clinicians and other hospital or trust representatives as appropriate. That might well involve a mediator. I am all for mediation if legal fees and all the expense and heartache that goes with them can be avoided.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said in his intervention about professional bodies, why can we not build into consumer law a requirement on private providers to provide a contractual obligation to their private customers?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, unfortunately, I am not an expert in consumer law. My noble friend Lord Marks might be able to enlighten us on this, but there are, of course, consumer protection laws, which every organisation has to abide by, as provided for in the Consumer Protection Act. I think there are probably consumer protection aspects to contracts relating to healthcare services, but we have to tailor the contracts to ensure that we cover the issues that healthcare gives rise to.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked me about the NHS Redress Act and whether the provisions of that Act were capable of taking forward some of the issues raised in the debate. I understand why he has asked that question, but there is a difference between redress for negligence and openness and it is important to distinguish between the two. As such, some of the issues raised this afternoon fall into the remit of redress and associated legislation rather than being specifically linked to a duty of candour. However, I note that, notwithstanding the long hours that we spent debating the NHS Redress Bill some years ago, the previous Government chose never to bring it into force; it is potentially on the statute book, but it is not in operation.

I shall reflect carefully on the points made in this debate. I hope that I have in some way reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that we are putting systems in place to introduce the duty of candour. To answer my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, we have a strategy. There are good reasons for the contractual route that we have chosen as well as a real potential downside if we were to go down the statutory route proposed here. So against that background, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

The Minister's comments on mediation prompt me to ask a further question. When I dealt with many of these cases, the complaints procedure was on three levels and the first, immediate level was when the patient or the patient’s representative came forward with a complaint to seek local resolution, and often mediation was used to bring the parties together to give, as far as possible, full information. This is very patchy and I was wondering whether, within the consultation and the contractual duties to which the Minister has referred, that will be extended so that things can be resolved at the first level before they get to the litigation stage. Is that being considered?

[Earl Howe]

I shall have to get back to my noble friend on whether it is specifically mentioned in the consultation. I can say that it is absolutely pertinent to the subject matter on which we are consulting. It would be extremely helpful if some of the response to the consultation covered issues such as mediation. We need to factor that in and perhaps my noble friend, with her experience, will feel able to send us her views on the subject.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

I thank all noble Lords who have supported, or not supported, the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that the last thing one wants is to make a difficult situation more dangerous. One wants to achieve accident prevention. It is vital that patients have trust in the doctors, nurses and other professionals who are treating them. Something has to happen now about the culture. We have to look at what happened at the Mid Staffordshire General Hospital. I sincerely hope that something will be learnt from that. I know that the Government want to improve things. I think that all doctors in the House are trusted by their patients, but there are doctors who have lost their patients’ trust. That is why I feel very strongly that whatever the Government try to do will have to be done by statute. Many doctors just follow the book and do not do what they should do.

I feel very strongly that your Lordships’ House, with all its expertise, as displayed tonight, must find a way. I sincerely hope that that will happen with the blessing of the Minister and the Government. I hope that we can work together and, before Report, get something that is acceptable to everyone, especially to patients. One must remember the patients who have suffered so badly and who are suffering today. Every time I open a newspaper, I see something about the culture of nursing, and something has to be done. It is the Government’s responsibility. We should go for a statutory obligation to protect patients. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Clause 3 : The Secretary of State's duty as to reducing inequalities

Amendment 21

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

21: Clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out “must have regard to the need” and insert “is required”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment along with that of my noble friend Lord Rooker, who cannot be with us this evening. I also support many of the other amendments in the group aimed at strengthening the Bill's provisions relating to reducing inequalities.

The problem of health inequalities has bedevilled the NHS since its inception. There are very considerable variations in health outcomes around the country and even in the same area between different groups. That variation was graphically illustrated by my noble friend Lord Darzi in his excellent report on London's health services in 2007, just before he became a Health Minister. That report showed that, as you travelled the seven stops on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Canning Town, so male mortality worsened by seven years. Of course, some of this deterioration is to do with income, housing, education and environmental issues. However, good access to services, good health education and good-quality treatment can have a strong mitigating effect. Therefore, we should be unequivocal in the duty we place on the Secretary of State to work to reduce inequalities. The wording that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I propose is—if I may put it as gently as I can—much less weaselly than the Bill’s current wording in proposed new Section 1B. Our wording effectively strengthens the impact of the other more detailed provisions in this group. I hope, therefore, the Minister will look sympathetically on our more dirigiste wording. I beg to move.

19:00

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I support this amendment. If ever there was a case against inequality of treatment, it is for people with ME. I am saying ME rather than ME-CFS because that is too long. The postcode lottery for people with ME has been highlighted in two inquiries by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for ME over the last five years. People are constantly writing to Ministers complaining; the noble Earl himself knows, because I keep complaining about it. In 2002, the Chief Medical Officer announced an award of £8.5 million to set up specialist centres for ME. These have just fizzled out. Once the £8.5 million ring-fence money had been spent, the first thing that was cut was services for people with ME. The trouble is, they are blighted with the distinction of being yuppie flu sufferers—people who swing the lead. They are not: this is more and more often now being proven to be a physical disease with mental side effects, as cancer and MS and a whole lot of other chronic diseases are. It is time the inequality of treatment for people with ME-CFS was obliterated.

Perhaps the worst inequality is in services for children. There are virtually no ME services for children in the UK, particularly children who are bed-bound and housebound, and this is a disgrace on our society. These children—very often high-achieving children—are suddenly struck down; they can no longer have social relationships because they are too ill or too tired to cope; they cannot continue with their education and yet there is no medical attention for them. I am sorry—I am suffering myself at the moment, so I am not being very comprehensive in what I am saying—but it does need to be said that these people need to be looked after. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

[Baroness Thornton]

Eight noble Lords have amendments down in this group about inequalities. Many of them seek to do the same kinds of thing. I intend to speak to Amendments 22, 25A, 27A—I mention in passing that my noble friend Lord Beecham has his name against Amendment 29—31, 32, 68A, 68B, 69B and 120A.

I will quickly run through these amendments. Amendments 21, 22, 23 and 25 strengthen the duty on the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities in the health service. The Bill currently requires the Secretary of State simply to “have regard to” this need. Amendment 21 says “is required”—the strongest of these amendments—followed by Amendment 22 with “seek”, and Amendment 23 with “act with a view”. Amendment 25A says it is the Secretary of State’s duty to reduce inequalities between people and “between communities” in England. I will return to that in a moment. In Amendment 27A, we on this side are seeking to add detail to the inequalities that the Secretary of State has a duty to reduce. We argue that,

“inequalities in health status, outcomes and experience, … the outcomes achieved … by … those services”,

and,

“ability to access such services”,

must be taken into consideration. My noble friend Lord Beecham has added his name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It adds a qualifier to the duty to reduce inequalities:

“to ensure that greater patient choice is not accorded a higher priority than tackling health inequalities”.

Amendment 31 says that, in an instance of a conflict of duties on commissioners or regulators, the duty to reduce inequalities is paramount. Amendment 32 says that, as part of this duty, the Secretary of State must publish comprehensive, publicly available data on the extent to which inequalities have been reduced across the NHS. Amendment 68A says that the duties of the NHS Commissioning Board as to the improvement of public health should be extended to cover the duty to reduce health inequalities. Amendment 68B concerns each local authority having to take steps to reduce health inequalities between people and between communities. Amendment 69B again relates to public health: the Secretary of State must also seek to reduce health inequalities between people and communities. Finally, Amendments 120A, 190A and 190B are about the national health Commissioning Board having a duty to reduce inequalities in health status. Noble Lords will get the theme that is running through here.

Clause 3 places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to health inequalities, and that is an aim and aspiration that we would, of course, support. However, the problem with this clause is that that duty is not capable of effective fulfilment. For example, public health analysis and needs assessment require comprehensive area-based population data. This is the basis of the current health system mechanisms for resource allocation and for the commissioning of public health measures designed to prevent or ameliorate systematic inequalities both between groups of residents in an area and across and among areas, with respect to the access of resources, services, and their use and outcomes. Census estimates, adjusted for factors such as age and deprivation, are used as the denominator for the population in such analyses. Our problem with this Bill is—and I would be grateful if the Minister would address this issue—that public health analysis will not be able to be carried out in this way in future because of the proposed shift from area-based PCTs to GP-listed clinical commissioning group structures. Therefore, denominators which allow GP registrations to promote reductions in inequalities might be inherently problematic because of continuous enrolment and disenrolment, which affect accuracy, as does patient selection. The denominator will not be representative of all the people in a geographically bounded area. Without a geographic population focus, it will not be possible to monitor inequalities. I realise that part of these issues is also addressed in amendments needed to Clauses 7 and 10, but they are points which we would like to have addressed here.

Amendments 120A and 190A address the argument that local authorities and clinical commissioning groups should have a duty to reduce inequalities not only in their areas, but also in England. We think this makes sense because, for example, somewhere like Lambeth or Bradford—where I come from—could make huge improvements within area inequalities but still lag miles behind the rest of the country. Amendment 25A calls on the Secretary of State to act to reduce inequalities between people and communities. The word “communities” is important in this context because it speaks to local authorities. Given that public health inequalities are going to be in their jurisdiction, it seems that this is an important matter. Therefore, we would like the Bill to address within-area geographical inequality because it refers to inequalities between groups and communities of groups, not just an individual’s access and receipt of services. We believe that the Government should set out how they intend to use non-legislative levers and incentives to translate the duties in the Bill into practical action and how the NHS will be accountable for progress in reducing health inequalities. Our Amendments 31 and 32 tie in with this. We think we need to understand where those levers will exist, how they will be used and how the Government will measure inequalities.

As noble Lords will realise, Amendments 120B and 190B also arise directly out of the Equality Act and concern individuals and discrimination in the receipt of services. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will address Amendment 33, which is tabled in her name. We believe that Amendment 120B addresses the general duties of the national Commissioning Board, which are vital parts of the picture. If the duties to deliver and secure provision of the health service are split between the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs, corresponding duties to reduce inequalities must also be exercised by all three, and these amendments seek to put that in the Bill.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak to these amendments, but it is clear that we have had problems associated with inequalities for a very long time, and they persist. Many years ago, we had the Black report on inequalities in health, which was a major landmark, and since then we have had Sir Michael Marmot and his marvellous book The Status Syndrome pushing away at the inequalities in health, and my noble friend Lord Layard and his book on happiness and the inequalities in life in general. There is no doubt that the effects of inequalities are very severe. We see quite marked differences in health and life expectancies in communities adjacent to those where life expectancy is very high. We have some communities where several years of life are lost. The effects are very severe indeed. The reasons why there are such inequalities are multiple. They are certainly way beyond the ambit of a health Bill. Clearly there are factors outside health services that make the difference. Nevertheless, it is important that we have within a health Bill recognition of that fact and of the need for those within a health service to take account of inequalities and make recommendations as a result of them, so I am very much in favour of these amendments. We should have them in the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for so clearly analysing the different amendments. I shall keep to those that are grouped together. As she said, the gravamen of the amendments is towards the view that the duties of the Secretary of State and, indeed, of other bodies involved in the NHS should be strengthened and put in rather more forceful terms. Whether one prefers “require” or “with a view to”, those words strengthen the position with regard to health inequalities from the rather low-level pressure of “with regard to”.

I say right away that my noble friend Lord Howe said, and I thought said very strongly, that this Bill contains a great many references to inequalities. It is also absolutely true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, doing something about them is a very difficult exercise. One of the striking findings of the wonderful book The Spirit Level, which I have referred to before in this House, is that where there are grave inequalities in society, there are almost invariably grave inequalities in health as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, the two are very closely related. Blame cannot be put entirely, or even largely, on the health service for the continuing inequalities. We know that there are very grave inequalities, both geographical and generational, between different parts of our society. To take only one example, lifestyles that feed bad health tend to be rather different between one section of society and another. I shall quote the words of the King’s Fund on the attempt made by the previous Government, to whom I give due credit, to deal with inequalities using the quality and outcomes framework. There was not much effect. The King’s Fund dismissed the whole effort with slightly contemptuous phraseology. It referred to,

“a medicalised and mechanistic approach to managing chronic disease”,

which is fairly damning. In addition, we know that economic differences between regions are very often reflected in health outcomes and, therefore, that looking at health outcomes has to be related to other outcomes: educational, income and social.

19:15

Let me therefore speak very quickly about some of the practical steps that can be taken to make the ethos and goal of this Bill more effective. The very first, which we will come to later, is crucial. It is taking public health from the Cinderella role it has had for many years to being seen as an essential part of a holistic health service. I refer to a series of articles in the Health Service Journal, the most recent of which appeared two weeks ago, about the failure to use modern communications much more effectively to get across to the public their own share in creating a better health outcome for themselves. All over London at the moment one can see in the windows of pharmaceutical companies, drug companies and so on abjurations to all of us to get ourselves a flu jab as quickly as possible. We also see, more widely, references to the dangers of smoking. Those are very simple examples of communications, but they could go a great deal further. If we can persuade our colleagues in public health and in individual clinical commissioning groups to use communications of the latest kind much more broadly and proactively, we would find one way in which to reduce the heavy demands made on the health service’s clinical and medical aspects.

Let me give one example. Nowadays quite a few people with chronic illnesses have formed networks of patients. They exchange an extraordinarily advanced and sophisticated level of mutual knowledge and understanding about the use of new drugs, new techniques and even about how the way in which one lives can reduce the risks inherent in particular chronic sicknesses. I think that is absolutely right. At the heart of public health is not only treatment but, perhaps more importantly, education. We still have a long way to go in that respect to bring patients into the business of helping to look after themselves, so my first question to the Minister is: how far are we putting emphasis on new communications technology as part of the future of public health?

The second thing I want to mention is the importance of clinical commissioning groups looking at the real danger, which was spelled out by Mr Dalton, the director of a PCT cluster, of creating what he called sink estates: clinical commissioning groups that end up with all the tough cases in an area. As we move towards coterminosity, I hope we will move away from that risk, but one cannot completely rule it out. It is something that a very close eye will have to be kept on by the clinical Commissioning Board to ensure that we do not see the creation of groups that are underfinanced, or at least, perhaps, underqualified, ending up with the hardest cases in the community.

I promise that I am not going to go on for very much longer, but thirdly, I believe it is of great importance to ensure that as far as possible—and this is caught up in the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred—publicity is given to the inequalities continuing in health so that we become more aware of the extent to which health inequalities could be tackled, possibly by methods other than simply health itself.

In that context I say rather loudly and clearly that I find it rather hard to understand the distribution of funds to local authorities on the basis of the so-called non-chronic expectation of life figures—which seem to have bitten very hard on some of the poorest communities in the country—and to emphasise that it is important for those who are dealing with a health service to look at their relationships with other government departments to ensure that the one objective is supported and helped by the others. I am worried that areas such as Knowsley, Merseyside and Manchester appear to be among the heaviest losers at a time when we are trying to bring social care and health together.

The final instance I want to give, which I think is also very important, is the crucial role in this respect of the health and well-being boards. I pay tribute to the Government for the role they have given to health and well-being boards. We are only at the very beginning of the development of the strength and influence of them. To take one example, I hope we will move towards a situation where the health and well-being boards not only are consulted by the clinical commissioning groups but their support and approval is required before a clinical commissioning group can go ahead with the business plans it has for its neighbourhood.

To conclude, the mobilisation of health and well-being boards behind the concept of a fairer and more equal health service is an absolutely crucial potential we all need to help realise.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I have my name on two of them. I particularly associate myself with the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made on the need to address the issues within public health to reduce inequalities.

We must all be very encouraged to see the recommendations of the Health Committee in its report of 2 November on public health. One of the recommendations says:

“We do not understand why the Secretary of State’s new statutory duty to reduce health inequalities under the Bill appears to apply only to the exercise of his functions in relation to the health service. We recommend that the Bill be amended to make it clear that the Secretary of State’s duty to reduce health inequalities applies in the exercise of all his functions, including those applying to public health”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, already referred to the inequalities in health that occur because of lifestyle-related diseases. In previous discussions we have noted that 40 per cent of acute admissions are related to lifestyle-related diseases. It must be right that the statutory duty of the Secretary of State includes functions relating to public health.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 33 in my name. I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, because a lot of my work is concerned with the sort of inequalities they have spoken about. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mentioned Professor Sir Michael Marmot. I have been privileged to chair the advisory group for the longitudinal study on ageing that he established. I have done that since it started. It demonstrates so clearly the terrible, almost life-or-death sentences that health inequalities impose on different groups in terms of their life expectancy. This is really something that is quite impossible for us to continue.

My other role as the lead commissioner on age at the Equality and Human Rights Commission means that I hope very much that we can, if we amend this Bill, achieve more positive healthcare outcomes. The Bill, in order to achieve that, must be explicit that improvements have to be achieved across the whole population, not just some parts of it. We know that one group whose needs are currently very often underprioritised and underrecognised is older people, particularly within the NHS. Sadly, ageism persists in clinical practice—very often older people lag behind other groups in terms of better healthcare outcomes. I am very concerned that unless a clear obligation to demonstrate that improvement is being achieved across the whole population, the specific needs of older people will continue to lag behind those of other groups or sometimes to be ignored and similar existing health inequalities may even be maintained and strengthened.

My amendment would define the Secretary of State’s duties to reduce health inequalities against three different criteria: the definitions of equality contained in the Equality Act 2010; different parts of England; and different socio-economic strata. In any subsequent reporting of progress towards reducing health inequalities, the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate consistency in the progress made against the three criteria.

My amendment would clarify the Secretary of State’s duties in relation to reducing health inequalities. I am afraid that without this in the Bill health service improvement may not reach everyone. There may be a failure to improve services for specific groups such as those mentioned within the list of protected characteristics. Clause 3 currently requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England with,

“respect to the benefits that they can obtain from the health service”.

The amendment to this clause would ensure that access to health services and improving health outcomes were an intrinsic part of the Secretary of State’s duties. Without guaranteeing improvement in access to services, there is a risk that there could be high levels of variation in the kinds of services the NHS provides across the country.

I have listed the equality characteristics detailed in the Equality Act 2010 which is not necessarily Members of your Lordships’ House. Too often it has been the case that health inequalities exist in part because people belong to one of the groups listed here and there is actual discrimination against a patient. In relation to specific treatments, patients are treated differently not purely on the basis of clinical decisions but on the basis of one of the protected characteristics, particularly age. For example, despite improvements in cancer outcomes, a 2007 study of breast cancer patients in Manchester found that older women are less likely than younger women to receive “standard” management for breast cancer and less likely even after accounting for differences in general health and co-morbidity to have surgery for operable breast cancer.

My amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State’s duties are clear and specific and that people across England can be sure their access to healthcare and the quality of the healthcare they need will be assured regardless of who is providing the service. The areas where the Secretary of State can demonstrate improvement in reducing inequalities should be balanced and fair in their focus. The risk otherwise is that commissioners will be incentivised to invest their efforts in improving health outcomes for those groups where they believe they can make the easiest and quickest gains and some groups, including older people, risk being shunted to the sidelines. This must not happen.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who want to beef up this duty on the Secretary of State. I want to ask the Minister to explain why the public health function was left out—it is very specific about NHS responsibilities. I suspect the answer is that public health is in relation to other departments of state. He is shaking his head so perhaps that is not the answer. Working in the NHS one cannot but be aware of these profound inequalities. Within the first week of going as chairman to the east London health authority, three facts hit me in the face. First, in Hackney, people had only a 25 per cent chance of referral for a hip replacement as per the norm for England. Secondly, in Newham, mortality rates for bowel cancer after treatment were 30 per cent worse than elsewhere. It clearly emerged that there was a failure of referral to access, for, particularly, certain of the ethnic communities. Thirdly, on a visit to the community podiatry service, every patient was white in an area where the population was 25 per cent black and minority ethnic. Simply, no one had ever asked them the relevant question. Addressing inequality seems to be profoundly difficult on the ground: you must have the information and the wit to discover whether there is a problem of access, referral or discrimination and treatment, or whether there are underlying features of the illness that make inequalities difficult to address.

19:30

This clause, which fundamentally is a great improvement on what has gone before, is important because it gets the matter into the Secretary of State’s duties. The phrase “have regard to” is quite powerful but I wonder whether it quite reflects the determination that we have all felt over the years when we have read the work of Michael Marmot and various groups, going right back to the Black report, and to ask why we do not have something a little stronger that gives teeth to local commissioning groups to examine these issues very carefully locally.

[Lord Ribeiro]

I want to pick up on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned; namely, elderly patients perhaps being denied treatment. There is a real danger in not recognising that the clinical decision is based on the quality of the patients rather than their age, which is important. We are all aware of 60 year-olds who are basically crumbling with significant code morbidity and who would not be considered for surgery. Yet, there are many fit and self-caring people in their late 80s who may fracture a hip and would be worthy of surgical treatment. In fact, many people in your Lordships’ House in that age group may have benefited from that type of treatment. It is very important that we should see this in the context of clinical need rather than just one of age.

Similarly, as regards cancer and the point I made about the older generation, not that long ago in the United States a carcinoma of the prostate was open season for anyone to have a radical prostatectomy practically at any age, be it 80 or 90 years old. The morbidity and mortality associated with that radical surgery was very high. The American College of Surgeons, at recent meetings I attended, recognised that patients over the age of 75 should not be offered this type of surgery unless there is a very good reason. It is also a well known fact that 80 per cent of males aged 80 and over actually have—not just probably have—carcinoma of the prostate. But on whether they should have treatment for it, they are more likely to die from other conditions than from their cancer. Although age is important, it should not be a specific criterion for determining whether treatment is given or not.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, I, too, should like to speak in support of this raft of amendments which are all designed, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, to give greater teeth to reducing health inequalities. We have already heard various statistics from a number of noble Lords and those for life expectancy are generally the most stark. The statistic that means the most to me relates to London, probably because that is where I live; namely, that the life expectancy of men ranges from 71 years in one ward in the London Borough of Haringey to 88 years in one ward in Kensington and Chelsea. That is a huge difference of 17 years. It is worth also pointing out that even within Kensington and Chelsea, there is a difference of nearly 12 years in life expectancy across different parts of the borough.

As many noble Lords have said, there is a whole range of reasons for this, including the social and the economic. It is one of the things that underline the critical need in our debates to put more focus on public health interventions. I also very much welcome the establishment and the role of Public Health England, and the fact that the public health function at a local level will sit with local authorities.

In discussing the need to strengthen these duties, it is important to recognise and welcome that having explicit duties placed for the first time on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups is a landmark, representing a major shift from the current position. There is something very significant about the whole raft of these NHS reforms.

The phrase “have regard to” health inequalities for the clinical commissioning groups is not sufficient because we need to make sure that they act and behave to secure real improvements, which need to be in both access to NHS services and in outcomes. I want those CCGs to account publicly for their progress, not simply as part of normal accountability but as part of sharing good practice and workforce development, and in the training of NHS employees. It should become part of the everyday currency and language of the NHS, part of the DNA of the way in which the health service operates. I believe that this strengthening is necessary if the NHS reforms are to become a real game-changer for some of the most disadvantaged group in society—to borrow from the words of the public health White Paper, Improving the Health of the Poorest Fastest.

Perhaps I may give an example in relation to homeless people who experience some of the worst health inequalities of any group in society. They are more likely to die young, live with a long-term condition, have multiple health problems and have mental health or substance use issues. They are also far less likely to have regular contact with a GP or other health professional and are much more likely to access healthcare through A&E, which is inappropriate and, as we know, causes all sorts of problems for A&E departments. In short, they are the most likely to have very poor health and the least likely to benefit from what the NHS has to offer.

Of course, many services are needed to help homeless people to improve their outcomes, including housing, employment, family support and other things. But it is particularly important that the NHS is able to cater for the needs of these groups. Appropriate services are far more likely to be commissioned where clinical commissioning groups have a duty to take account of these health inequalities in their plans and reporting mechanisms and the standards to which they are held to account, and that they are ensuring that these arrangements are incentivised through the commissioning arrangements.

I very much support the principle of the amendments put forward and I look forward to hearing the Government giving an even stronger commitment to tackling health inequalities and to making this a key outcome of the overall package of reforms that we are discussing.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I seek only to intervene briefly on this. The whole issue of how to tackle inequalities in health is an extremely complex and difficult one. When I was a Member of Parliament, I looked forward to receiving from the department reports on a regular basis on how inequalities had been addressed and how health had improved throughout the constituency. What was clear was that the more effective our public health interventions were, such as on reducing smoking, the more difficult it was to tackle inequalities. The people who automatically responded best to those interventions were those on higher wages, with better qualifications and who were likely to be in higher class groups than those in the poorest parts of the constituency. That could always be seen clearly in those reports. The amendments that support better information are very important because clinical commissioning groups in particular are not well placed instinctively to tackle inequalities. It is generally not part of the training of GPs to look at these issues and work out how to address them.

We have already discussed the second issue today, and it is important—the issue of access. Unless we open up access much more sharply to the disadvantaged we will not have a chance of addressing inequalities. The noble Baroness opposite talked about homelessness. I have discussed this issue with the Minister on a number of occasions, and I am not content that the Bill deals with it adequately. It is not fair to ask clinical commissioning groups to address this issue. Sometimes they will simply be too small to do so. Also, homeless people tend to be fairly mobile, so in London they will cross authority areas. From my experience in the north-east of England, a single PCT—or what will now be the smaller clinical commissioning groups—does not have the people available properly to offer the sort of services that are needed to open up access effectively to those who are not normally registered on a GP list.

I am also concerned that clinical commissioning groups may be responsible for areas with poor GP coverage and there will be a need to bring in salaried GPs. It will need someone other than a clinical commissioning group to address the issue of GP shortages—and it is always the poorest areas which have the poorest access to GPs. It is an issue that continues to have to be addressed time and time again. I was pleased when the last Government introduced many more salaried GPs, but we have to keep on top of that agenda.

I also support the amendments that look to the responsibilities of the NHS Commissioning Board. There will be occasions when the board has to come in specifically to address inequalities in a range of ways. I am not sure that it is really geared up to do that at the moment. But because I certainly do think that clinical commissioning groups are not going to be able to do this on their own, and indeed it would not be appropriate for them to address some areas of clinical commissioning, it is very important that the department, the Secretary of State and the Commissioning Board think about how they are going to do this effectively.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I particularly welcome the amendments which are designed to strengthen the duty to reduce health inequalities between people and communities, the emphasis here being on inequalities not between “the people of England”, but between individuals as well as groups. I draw attention to this because in 2008 the Department of Health drew up a policy on health inequalities, and I sat on the group which developed it. I was pleased when the document was published in June 2008 because it talked about the group that I am interested in, which is people with learning disabilities. I shall read out a short paragraph from the executive summary because it makes my point very nicely:

“Progress on health inequalities will be judged against how public services treat especially vulnerable groups. The recent Disability Rights Commission report made it clear that people with learning disabilities often receive a poorer level and quality of service from the NHS. If services and health outcomes are improving for people with learning disabilities, they are likely to be improving for other groups at risk of health inequalities”.

The report goes into some detail about the importance of measuring the improvement in health inequalities for particularly vulnerable groups. That is a good measure to measure progress in the NHS.

19:45

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond very briefly from these Benches. I took the Committee through our amendments at a gallop, so perhaps I may make two points very quickly. This debate has illustrated the problem that these amendments seek to address, and indeed it was illustrated by criticism from the King’s Fund and the Commons Health Select Committee, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The duties, although welcome, are too narrowly drawn and, crucially, do not extend to local authorities. I might say that the noble Earl’s party does have form in this matter. We know how a previous Conservative Government treated the Black report, ready in 1980 just after the Conservatives came to power. It was not to Mrs Thatcher’s liking and was never printed. Only 260 photocopies were distributed in a half-hearted fashion on bank holiday Monday—my noble friend says that he has two of them. I know that the coalition Government would not allow that to happen and I welcome the change of heart that is shown in this part of the Bill.

However, my understanding is that the weighting given to health inequalities in the formula of allocating NHS funding has been reduced from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. Can the Minister confirm that that is indeed the case? What signal does it send about the Government’s priorities and their commitment to dealing with health inequalities? It seems to me that the commitment to dealing with health inequalities could be remedied. There is a need for a widened definition of health inequalities to include reducing inequalities in the health role, and of access for the Secretary of State, the NCB and clinical commissioning groups. There is a need to specify and define inequalities, particularly inequalities between groups and communities rather than individuals, and there needs to be a strong duty on local authorities as public health duties are transferred to them.

Finally, the message here is that the Minister needs to look carefully at these amendments and that the Committee is very interested in engaging with the Government to strengthen this part of the Bill. I look forward to the noble Earl’s remarks.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities, to ensuring equity and fairness across the health service, and to improving the health of the most vulnerable in our society. On top of the pre-existing general public sector equality duty, for the first time the Secretary of State will have a specific responsibility to,

“have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities”,

whatever their cause. This duty will be backed by similar duties on the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups. Taken together, these duties will ensure a focus on the reduction of health inequalities throughout the system, with special consideration paid to outcomes achieved both in relation to NHS services and to public health.

While many noble Lords seek to amend these new duties, we believe that they are right as they stand. The duty will not be an add-on or an afterthought. The Secretary of State, the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will be required always when carrying out any and all of their functions to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities. I should also point out here that the duty is purposefully non-specific. Amendments 21, 22, 23, 25, 27 and 27A all aim in different ways to strengthen the wording of the Secretary of State’s duty. While I fully accept that the reduction of health inequalities must be a priority for the Secretary of State, it must also be recognised that the causes of health inequalities and the remedies to them are complex and multidimensional and require a multisector approach. Factors such as poverty, education, employment and culture require solutions which extend far beyond the Secretary of State’s or the Department of Health’s remit or capabilities. The duty on the Secretary of State must recognise the nature of the challenge we face in reducing health inequalities, and it must be deliverable. We should hold the Secretary of State to account only for the things that he is responsible for. The duty in the Bill is drafted with these factors in mind.

For the same reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept attempts to amend the wording of the duty to “act with a view to” or “seek to reduce”. While I understand the noble Lord’s attempts to make the duty as strong as possible, “have regard to” captures the intention of the legislation; that is, that the Secretary of State must consider the need to reduce inequalities in every decision that he takes about the NHS and public health. The approach that the unamended clause sets out is the right way to achieve this. As it stands, the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in any decision that he made. Contrary to what some have thought, having regard is a strong duty which shows the Government’s commitment to the reduction in health inequalities. The duty to “have regard to” has established meaning and has been used in other important legislation, such as the duty to have regard to the NHS constitution in the Health Act 2009. The courts can and do strike down administrative actions in cases where decision-makers have not had regard to something in contravention of a statutory duty to do so. For example, they have struck down decisions of public authorities for failure to have due regard to their equality duties. The courts have said in relation to public sector equality duties that the duty to have due regard must be exercised with rigour and an open mind—it is not a question of ticking boxes. The duty has to be integrated within the discharge of the public functions of the authority. It involves a conscious and deliberate approach to policy-making and needs to be thorough enough to show that due regard has been paid before any decision is made.

Perhaps I could clarify for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that the duty in Clause 3 already applies to public health functions. The expression,

“functions in relation to the health service”,

covers both NHS functions and the Secretary of State’s public health functions. “The health service”, as that term is used in the 2006 Act, is not limited to the NHS.

Amendment 27, tabled by my noble friend Lady Williams, would have the effect of making the Secretary of State and the Department of Health responsible for reducing inequalities generally, beyond those relating to health. We cannot accept the amendment because there are many areas, such as wealth inequality, which are rightly not within the department's responsibility, and therefore to place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health to reduce these would not be practical.

Amendment 27A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would specify that the Secretary of State’s duty in reducing inequalities should be in relation to health status, outcomes achieved, experience and the ability to access services. The amendment is modelled partly on the wording of the Commissioning Board’s and CCGs’ inequality duties. While I agree with the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, I can reassure her that the reference to “benefits” in the unamended clause already covers these aspects and so the amendment is unnecessary. The reason that the Secretary of State’s duty talks of benefits that people can obtain from the health service is that it includes public health as well as the NHS. The Secretary of State's duty is deliberately broader than the duty of the board and CCGs.

Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, aims to ensure that promoting patient choice is not given a greater priority than reducing health inequalities. I understand that some people have concerns that greater choice and competition could exacerbate inequalities, and I am aware that there are particular concerns that choice could benefit the better-off at the expense of others. However, our proposals on choice are intended to ensure that all patients are given opportunities to choose. We do not believe that the assertion that the better-off will benefit more from choice is borne out by the evidence. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that choice has the potential to improve equity. For example, some noble Lords may have seen the study published recently by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York, which found that,

“increased competition from 2006 did not undermine socio-economic equity in health care and, if anything, may have slightly increased use of elective inpatient services in poorer neighbourhoods”.

So I do not believe that there are any grounds for thinking that improving choice and tackling health inequalities are incompatible. They should be mutually reinforcing.

Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would introduce wording to ensure that if the duties placed on commissioners or regulators came into conflict with any other duty, the duty to reduce inequalities would prevail. I fully share the intention of making sure that these organisations do not ignore the goal of reducing inequalities. However, the inequality duty must already be complied with when bodies are exercising all their other functions. Therefore, I cannot agree that other duties placed on commissioners or regulators would conflict with their general duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities.

Amendment 32, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seeks to place on the Secretary of State a duty to publish evidence about the extent to which inequalities have been reduced annually. I fully agree that the NHS and the Secretary of State should be accountable for their efforts to reduce inequality. Clause 50 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on the NHS. Since tackling inequality will be such an important legal duty throughout the NHS, we have every expectation that inequalities will be a key reporting theme in the Secretary of State’s annual report.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to give particular regard to certain factors and characteristics when having regard to inequalities. Amendments 120B and 190B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would amend the Commissioning Board’s and clinical commissioning groups’ inequality duties, in new Sections 13G and 14S of the 2006 Act, to include the same list of characteristics and factors. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baronesses that there is no need for these amendments. First, it is unnecessary to prescribe the characteristics and factors to be covered by the Secretary of State, the Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning group duties. The current, unamended duties would already cover health inequalities arising from any characteristic or factor. On top of this, as we have already discussed, the Secretary of State and the NHS are already bound by the general Equality Act 2010. Section 149 of that Act lists the characteristics covered in paragraphs (a) to (i) of the amendments. Therefore, the Secretary of State and NHS bodies will already have to give specific consideration to these characteristics. In not being specific in the duty on the Secretary of State, the Commissioning Board or CCGs, we are keeping the duty with regard to health inequalities as broad as possible, so that no characteristics which drive health inequalities are inadvertently omitted.

As the noble Baroness made clear, there are two new factors not listed in the Equality Act but proposed by the amendments. These are geographical variation and socioeconomic variation. However, it is unnecessary to specify these factors either. They are already wellestablished dimensions of health inequalities and will be taken into account under the duties on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, and CCGs. They are also already specified in the NHS outcomes framework, subject to data considerations.

Apart from being unnecessary, the amendments are also in a real sense undesirable. While I am sure that this is not the intention, their effect would be to give pre-eminence or priority to certain characteristics or factors. We are dealing here with the perennial problem of “the list”; by implication, anything not on the list is less important. Instead, the Government are committed to ensuring that all dimensions of health inequalities are encompassed by the proposed duties, a principle that I am sure all noble Lords can agree with. All factors leading to health inequalities should be considered, with the weight given to them depending on particular circumstances.

20:00

Amendments 25A, 68A, 68B, 69B, 120A and 190A have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and focus on health inequalities between communities. The amendments to Clause 9 would alter the duty on local authorities to take steps to improve the health of the people in their area and the equivalent power for Secretary of State.

Amendment 25A would amend the existing duty of the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities. While I share the noble Baroness's concerns about the reduction of health inequalities between communities, the unamended Secretary of State's duty already covers this. The current duty applies to inequalities between the people of England, and communities are made up of people.

Amendments 120A and 190A would place a similar duty on both the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs, when exercising their functions, to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between people and between communities, not only in access and outcomes, which includes the patient experience, but in health status, which is intended, as I understand it, to mean a standard of health and well-being.

Moreover, the amendments would require CCGs to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between individuals and communities in their area, and in England as a whole. The board, similarly, would need to reduce inequalities between individuals, and between communities across England.

However, the amendments go beyond this simple replication of existing duties on commissioners by including a reference to health status. This would place a significant additional burden on CCGs and the NHS Commissioning Board, as neither is directly responsible for commissioning for public health.

Amendments 68A, 68B and 69B would amend new Section 2B of the National Health Service Act 2006, which relates to functions of local authorities and the Secretary of State in the improvement of public health. The amendments would add duties to reduce health inequalities as well as to improve health. While I fully appreciate the noble Baroness’s intentions in highlighting inequalities, we do not think that the amendments are necessary or appropriate. I hope to reassure the noble Baroness that tackling inequalities in health is a priority for public health professionals and for the Government.

At a national level, Public Health England will be a source of information, advice and support for local authorities and clinical commissioning groups as they develop local approaches to improving health and well-being and communicating intelligence to local commissioning about how best to tackle the public health challenges that they face.

As the Committee may be aware, Public Health England will carry out the Secretary of State's functions. This means that the Secretary of State will already be closely involved in matters of public health. In exercising these public health functions, the Secretary of State is already under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from the health service, as set out in Clause 3.

Amendment 69B would amend the Secretary of State's power to take steps to improve the health of the people in England. The amendment would be intended to give the Secretary of State additional powers to take steps to improve health and reduce health inequalities between people and communities as well as steps to improve health. We think that such a power is unnecessary. In exercising his powers to improve health, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reduce inequalities, as a result of Clause 3. This means that he would be able to take steps to reduce inequalities in exercising his health-improvement powers. Reducing inequalities should be an integral part of how other functions are exercised, so this amendment is not the best way of achieving the noble Baroness’s aim.

Amendment 68B would amend the local authority duty to take steps to improve the health of the population. The amendment would require local authorities to take steps to improve the health of the population and to reduce health inequalities between people and between communities.

Local authorities are independent democratic bodies that are accountable to their populations in a different way from NHS bodies. We have used different levers such as the grant circular to ensure that a reduction in inequalities is the fundamental driver of the public health system. We believe that these non-legislative levers will be at least as effective as any duty, although of course local authorities are already subject to the provisions in the Equality Act 2010.

The noble Baroness indicated that without area-based populations for CCGs it would be too difficult to measure public health data and tackle inequalities. She is incorrect about that. We disagree that the reforms will hinder the collection and usage of public health data. First, in response to her specific point, CCGs will continue to have a strong geographical basis, as we discussed at length last week. CCGs will play an active role in tackling inequalities. Secondly, the functions of bodies that are currently responsible for public health information and intelligence will also be brought into the department, such as the public health observatories and the cancer registries. This will enable Public Health England to make the most of opportunities for synergies across different services and to eliminate gaps in information to support the better delivery of public health interventions at a national and local level.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked about the reduction in the disability-free life expectancy component of the resource allocation formula. The DFLE adjustment is retained as part of our commitment to reducing health inequalities. The size of the adjustment determines the weighting of the main formula, which aims to fund equal access for all and funding for work to support work to reduce health inequalities. The main formula already includes weighting for additional need to access healthcare in elderly and/or deprived populations.

In the last allocations round, ACRA could find no technical basis for the weighting of the DFLE adjustment and left it to ministerial decision. Until further work on allocations to GP clinical commissioning groups and the public health service has been completed, it is being set at 10 per cent to ensure that funding for work on health inequalities continues.

I apologise for the length of my remarks, but it was important to set out the Government's position on each of the amendments. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that the Government are committed to reducing health inequalities, and that the current duties in the Bill are the most effective way of supporting this aim. In the light of my explanation, I hope the noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I do not want to prolong it. The mood of the House was to strengthen the wording in Clause 3 on the Secretary of State's duties on reducing inequalities. A key factor that the noble Earl may have overlooked is the relationship of that duty to the Secretary of State being more active on the subject of access, which is a key part of securing inequalities. In the mean time, I will withdraw my amendment, but I must tell the noble Earl that we may return to this at a later stage.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendments 22 and 23 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 9.07 pm.

Children: Secure Children’s Homes

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

20:07

Tabled By

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of budget cuts on the work of secure children’s homes in reducing children’s reoffending rates.

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise once again the issues that relate to those children in the country today who are the most difficult and challenging, the most damaged and needy. They are the children between the ages of 12 and 16 and sometimes as young as 10 and as old as 17, whose offending behaviour has resulted in them being detained in either a secure children's home, which I will refer to as a SCH, or a secure training centre or STC, which means that they are also the most expensive to provide for. Older ones, from 16 to 18, will normally be in a YOI.

Decisions on the care of these children fall to the Youth Justice Board and now inevitably are part of the focus of the range of spending cuts being made around the country. Consultations are therefore being held to develop a strategy for the next few years which will determine the need, the cost and above all the type of provision for these children. It will also, coincidentally, reveal how far we are prepared to honour our duty of care to our most vulnerable children, despite all the challenges that they present. Failure to respond effectively today will result inevitably in continued reoffending and far greater and far more expensive long-term problems tomorrow.

The most immediate evidence of the problem comes in the figures from the MoJ that the reoffending rate of this group of children is 72 per cent within a year of release. It is the highest figure for all offenders being released from custody, thus demonstrating the relative ineffectiveness of the penal approach to this group. Their experience of life is light years away from that of the majority of our children and can be encapsulated in the telling phrase, “a disproportionate experience of loss”—meaning loss of family life, love and security.

For those 12 to 18 year-olds who end up in custody, the figures illustrate that 71 per cent have been involved with, or in the care of, social services; 75 per cent have lived with someone other than a parent at some time—this compares with 1.5 per cent of the population; a quarter have experienced violence at home; 40 per cent have been homeless—we are talking here about the 21st century; and 90 per cent have been excluded from school. These are children for whom violence at home is often the norm. Some of them start their nursery schooling not even knowing what their name is, such is the absence of a loving family life. Of those who end up in custody, up to 81 per cent have mental health problems. Those figures may be enough to give a flavour of the extreme and shocking difficulties in many of these children’s lives.

I pay tribute to the Youth Justice Board for its work over the past four to five years, in particular for the way in which it has succeeded in bringing down the numbers of 10 to 14 year-olds going into custody by a remarkable 51 per cent since 2006-07. The reasons for that are complex and varied, but it demonstrates not only the courts’ overuse of custody in the past but the creative work that the YJB has developed with the YOTs and other agencies in the community in prevention, diversion and treatment, all of which is greatly to be welcomed.

Of course, such a reduction leaves spare capacity and, therefore, considerable savings—hence the current consultation. The decisions to be made for the future offer a rare opportunity to reconfigure provision to meet better these young people’s needs and intractable problems, but it is not clear in what direction things will go. The response of the MoJ and YJB to these savings, alongside the demands for funding cuts, may be to take this as an opportunity to develop more welfare-oriented, child-centred approaches. Alternatively, there may be a threat to best practice through the merging or combining of facilities, driven by the need for cuts, which would be unlikely to reduce reoffending and would be a tragic lost opportunity.

There are several reasons for my concern. First, there has been a drop of a third in the number of children placed in secure children’s homes by the YJB, while its use of STCs has risen by 19 per cent. Real concern about this trend has been expressed by virtually every specialist agency working with these children. The views of such agencies are represented by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which states unequivocally that the predominantly welfare-centred ethos of the secure children’s homes is absolutely vital not only for the future chances and well-being of these children but for reducing reoffending. There should be no further reduction in the numbers of those beds. The suspected motive is to achieve short-term cost savings, which is simply counterproductive. By contrast, the STCs are part of the prison estate with all that that implies—they are essentially places of punishment—and are not an appropriate answer, greatly improved though I acknowledge they have become. It is also absolutely clear that more research is needed into a needs analysis of these children.

A policy starting point recommended by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice is the raising of the remand and custody thresholds, which would guarantee a reduction in the number of those remanded or sentenced to custody and contribute to cutting costs at the same time. That is a wise recommendation. Very worrying is the evidence that the overarching assumption that should inform the sentencing of children—namely, that custody should be used as a very last resort and for the shortest period of time—is not being adhered to. Evidence from Barnardo’s shows that 35 per cent of 12 to 14 year-olds in custody did not appear to meet the custody thresholds defined in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The evidence also suggests that 50 per cent of children remanded in custody in 2009 were subsequently acquitted or given a community sentence.

In my experience in Scotland as a member for nine years of the children’s panel, which is the Scottish equivalent to the youth court, our guiding principle was, and still is, that the child’s needs should be addressed as a priority, for it is only in understanding his or her needs that you can begin to understand and deal appropriately with the deeds that have led to the hearing. I am quite clear that there are times, especially for the most difficult, when secure accommodation is indeed absolutely necessary because security is what is really needed and the child is at serious risk in the community, whether from family, lifestyle or contacts. Indeed, sometimes the community may be at risk from a child’s chaotic or violent behaviour, but this is usually for a brief period. However, any placement should be very frequently reviewed so that proper assessments are made. I believe that that is the right model.

The recent development, within prisons in England, of what are called “enhanced units” for children and young people is interesting but also worrying. For example, the Keppel unit at Wetherby YOI and the Willow unit at Hindley YOI have recently been developed. I have visited the Keppel unit and seen evidence there of very good work, of which the YJB is justly proud. However, imprisoning children with adult provision being adapted to them rather than being designed around their needs is simply not right. It raises the question of whether such provision is becoming the alternative in the MoJ’s planning for secure children’s homes provision. That would be a real mistake. There is no question of the need for specialist provision, but it must be properly geared to meet the needs of this group of children in a specialist environment.

Cost is a very real issue for the YJB. For example, the cost per bed night in one of the four STCs, such as Oakhill, can be £861.40. There has always been a perception that secure children’s homes were more expensive, but the Prison Reform Trust has demonstrated that this is no longer the case. It quotes one children’s home at a mere £599 per night. This is important because it seems that there is more scope for negotiating price. The figures for residential provision, although absolutely mouth-watering, reflect the needs of the most vulnerable children, to whom our duty of care must be honoured.

These are just some of the issues that the Government must take into account. False economies are not what these children, or the country, need. I look forward to hearing reassuring words on the future of current best professional practice in secure children’s homes from the Minister.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that Back-Bench contributions are five minutes long. When the clock shows five, time is up.

20:18

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I declare an interest, which the Minister may think singularly inappropriate—I am a member of the Out of Trouble advisory group of the Prison Reform Trust—and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on introducing the debate.

The background to the debate is that in this country we criminalise children at much too young an age, much younger than in most other jurisdictions. We lock them up five times more on average than similar societies do. For example, to compare ourselves with Finland, we have 2,000 youngsters under 18 in custody, whereas Finland, with one-tenth of our population, has precisely six. Finland has 4,000 adolescent treatment centre places, whereas this country, with 10 times the population, has a mere 1,100. There is also the significant cost, to which the noble Baroness has referred; it costs £51,000 a year to keep a child in a young offender institution and £165,000 in a secure training centre. Of course, we now have cuts of 20 per cent in the YOTs budget—23 per cent, actually, in London—at a time when, as we have heard in the past couple of weeks, reoffending rates in 70 per cent of youth offending team areas are beginning to rise.

The noble Baroness has referred to the background of many of these youngsters. Three times as many suffer from mental health problems as in the general population and 25 per cent of them have special needs, while 23 per cent of them have IQs of less than 70 and 36 per cent have between 70 and 79. That is nearly 60 per cent with IQs of under 80, and 60 per cent have poor communication skills. All too often, they are in custody because of breach of an order, such as an ASBO, and not necessarily for serious offences. In cases of non-violent, less serious offences resulting in custody, about 61 per cent arise from a breach of an order.

The Prison Reform Trust recently published a document on this whole process, pointing out that far too often it is the breach of an order that leads to custodial sentences, and it made eight significant recommendations for improving that situation, including topics that one might have thought would be useful across the whole of the system: involving children in decisions taken about them; improving the quality of intervention in the community; and identifying and meeting welfare needs leading to offences in the first place, dealing with the problem before it translates into a criminal offence. That involves not just the criminal justice system. Clearly it goes much beyond that and involves the health system, children’s services and, arguably, the whole issue of family responsibilities. This issue certainly needs to be progressed.

Other factors also cause concern. In the population of young people in custody, a disproportionate number of children are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly in remand. They seem to have a significantly higher propensity to be remanded in custody than other children. The position of black and minority ethnic girls receiving custodial sentences is also distinctly out of line with either their male counterparts from those communities or with the non-BME population. If those issues are to be tackled, we need to get to the children well before the problems manifest themselves. In the mean time, we must also look at non-custodial ways in which to deal with these children, including justice reinvestment. Involving young people in community payback and giving them a skill while they are doing that has proved to be effective in reducing reoffending rates. Contrary to the public myth peddled by some of the tabloid press, there is a willingness on the part of the public to accept that custody is not necessarily the best solution and that properly constructed schemes involving young people in community activities and the like can be very effective.

I end by quoting the following passage:

“Just threatening to lock young people up will not break the cycle. Of course criminals need to face penalties for their actions but we desperately need to deal with the reasons why they are committing crime in the first place. Otherwise we move from being ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ to being ‘tough on headlines, soft on the causes of the headline’”.

That is a quote from the report from the Centre for Social Justice, produced by Iain Duncan Smith’s working party.

20:24

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, this debate identifies two issues that need to be addressed. First, there is the effect of budget cuts on secure children's homes and, secondly, there is the impact of cuts on policies designed to deal with reoffending rates. In this debate, we cannot ignore the fact that in recent times there has been a reduction in the custody of children of 10 years of age. That is welcome, but we should also be concerned that England and Wales has the lowest age of criminal responsibility and the highest level of child incarceration in western Europe. These are the further issues that cannot be avoided or ignored.

Past government announcements have made it clear that the independent role provided by the Youth Justice Board is, they say, no longer required. There is no dispute that the Youth Justice Board was created in response to a lack of cohesion and collaborative working, which was a feature of our justice system in dealing with children and young persons. Equally, it is true that the Youth Justice Board has, over 12 years, developed a secure and distinct estate for young people. This is something we all welcome. I am aware of the Government's intention to retain youth offending teams and that they will continue to place young people separately from adult offenders in dedicated, secure estates. The Youth Justice Board already has a proven record and I suspect that it should be a barometer against which all future successes or failures will be measured.

There is ample evidence at hand that preventive intervention in the lives of children with behavioural problems can bring about improvements and reduce the risk of serious or persistent offending at a later stage. That is why this must be at the heart of any policy development in reducing offending. It is beyond dispute that a substantial number of young people—the figure could be as high as 70 per cent—reoffend within two years of leaving a penal establishment. Prisons do little to correct this behaviour. This is where specialised help, geared to the need of individual offenders and accompanied by better training for those who work in secure centres, is absolutely important. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the impact of budget cuts does not impair training, which is where the cuts are more likely to be found and faced.

We had an interesting debate last week on the role of magistrates. It is clear that sentencing should never ignore the two other pillars, restoration and prevention, on which our justice system is based. Each of those pillars has its own role but each is dependent on the other two. Put together and effectively co-ordinated, they help in the problem of integrating the offenders in society. Of course, we must never underestimate young people who are violent and for whom secure settings are appropriate. When we examine the reoffending levels associated with youth custody, there must be something fundamentally wrong; three out of four are reconvicted within a year of completing their sentence.

Against this background, we must also recognise a striking improvement in the youth justice system: the frequency of reoffending by young people has been reduced since 2000; the number of young people coming into the youth justice system for the first time has reduced significantly in the past two years; and over our first 18 months, there has been a very significant decline in the number of young people under 18 being held in custody. This is a distinct youth justice strand, and my plea to the Minister is to ensure that whereas the current economic circumstances require the Government to make substantial reductions in public expenditure, it is not inconsistent with policy that these cuts do not impinge on the success of youth justice work.

We need great care and sensitivity to ensure that the system breaks the cycle of deprivation, otherwise children and young people from disadvantaged communities and neighbourhoods will be recycled again and again within the criminal justice system. We understand the Government’s dilemma; pressure on public spending requires the need to eliminate waste and invest in services that deliver value for money. Against that, we need to respond to the real difficulties faced by our children, particularly those from deprived or disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government alone cannot solve this problem. Communities have to come together to provide better life chances and skills and address the anti-social behaviour of their children. We need to build a carefully structured and adequately resourced youth justice system that will lessen the impact of crime in the community. In conclusion, we have a success story to tell; let us hope that budgetary cuts do not bring us back to the dysfunctional youth justice policies before the Youth Justice Board was established.

20:28

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia]

It is a great honour to rise for the first time and speak in your Lordships’ House. I would like to thank your Lordships for the quality and the depth of the welcome I have received from all sides of your Lordships’ House. It has, for me, been a very sharp learning curve. Indeed, I was so ignorant that when mention of another place was made I assumed that this was heaven. It is only since joining your Lordships’ House that I have been amazed by how hard and diligently your Lordships work. In particular, I thank my sponsors, the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Peckham and Lord Sassoon, and my mentor, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, all of whom give an immense amount of their time freely to this House and to the community, and yet have spared time to assist me. I also thank all the dedicated staff who serve your Lordships’ House. The friendly nod and wink from the doorkeepers has been invaluable in navigating me in the right direction and helping me to avoid the many pitfalls awaiting a newcomer.

My great-grandfather arrived from Russia almost penniless. He started work in the East End, sifting rags. My grandfather left school when he was 16 and my father, having won an exhibition to Cambridge, was the first member of his family to attend university. My mother’s family had arrived a few generations before and was already successful by the time my parents met. My parents both worked hard, my father in his chosen career and my mother devoting herself to him, the family and numerous charitable causes. That was the example that they set. Education was of paramount importance at home and doing one’s best was the gold standard.

I was fortunate that there was no gender discrimination and it was expected that I would strive to become self-sufficient in the same way as my two brothers. At 12, I was sent to boarding school. I was not an especially good student and felt that some of the existing customs were rather strange and capable of improvement. One of these was the way our day was managed. The whole community was controlled by the almost Pavlovian ringing of bells to get up, start and stop eating, begin and finish lessons and go to sleep. My year group occupied some prefab classrooms and one day, together with a more nimble friend, we tape-recorded the school bell and then blocked the real bell at the end of the corridor. For a blissful week we got away with operating the tape recorder and cutting five minutes off each lesson, until the truth was out. In January this year, when I was woken at 3.43 am by the Division Bell in this House, I thought of the irony of the by then familiar noise that now regulated my life.

I was inspired at school by my headmistress, who taught law. I recognised that, used effectively, it was a means that enabled people to protect others. I subsequently obtained a disappointing law degree from Exeter University but managed to get a sought-after place to do my articles in the City, at the firm Herbert Smith. It was there that I had the good fortune to work among hugely talented people, one of whom is my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, who sits on the Benches opposite and was then in charge of the articled clerks. He encouraged me and inspired me to keep going and make my career in law. So much of life is luck, and I have been blessed with people who can see light at the end of the tunnel when it is not always obvious that there is any there.

During my articles I shared a room with a legal executive, Stanley Grant, who had had little formal education but who knew everything that was worth knowing about divorce law. That was where my career as a divorce lawyer began. By far the most important aspect of early promotion to partnership at the age of 25 was that, when my children arrived some years later, I could afford proper childcare and could delegate some of my work in the office to capable assistants to enable me to be physically with my children at the beginning and end of each day.

I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in today’s debate on budget cuts for secure children’s homes and reducing children’s reoffending rates. It is a topic of great importance that touches on the work that I do. I have three points to make: first, the importance of a stable home life; secondly, the importance of education; and thirdly, the important role of teachers as carers, educators and inspirers. Nothing that we do in policy-making should detract from these important principles, all of which can both diminish the risk of offending in the first place and assist in rehabilitation when it occurs. Children are frequently the innocent victims of a breakdown of the family unit, be it a cohabitation, a marriage or a civil partnership. Without any feeling of belonging, they are the most vulnerable to offending. It is my belief that prevention is better than cure, and this is the way to seek to cut the cost of these problems.

As he retired, the parting message of Lord Jakobovits, not only to the Jewish community but to the British people, was that marriage and family life had to be learnt but that if necessary we should have classes for young people, teaching them the importance of family life and how to bring up children, how to discipline them kindly but firmly and how to instil the sense of moral law within them.

I express my gratitude to my own family, my grandparents and parents, for their example of hard work and fun and their unblemished record of staying together, and to my husband and children for their understanding and tolerance, without which I doubt I could deal with the things that are, sometimes literally, thrown at me. It has been a long journey but I hope very much that over time I will be able to make a proper contribution to your Lordships’ House. I feel proud and humble to be a Member.

20:35

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I know that I speak for noble Lords on all sides of the House in saying without reservation how warmly we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, to our midst. Her speech was significant and I shall return to it in a moment. First, let me just say that it is good to have with us somebody with such a powerful reputation in her career, and with so much insight into the legal dimensions of our society and, beyond that, into the stories behind those legal dimensions. I know that Exeter University has a tradition of producing strong and formidable women—my wife is one. It is small wonder that that university so wisely awarded the noble Baroness an honorary doctorate. Before long, I am sure we shall want to award her all sorts of plaudits for the contributions that she makes. We welcome her most warmly and look forward to her contributions.

In her speech, the noble Baroness made reference to the importance of family life, education and stability in the upbringing of children. It could not have been a more significant contribution to make to this debate, in which we are dealing with children who have lacked stability; children who frequently have not enjoyed any kind of family life; and children who have, for one reason or another, not had the benefits of continuous and sound education.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, who will wind up, always admonishes me when I make this kind of point, saying, “Please remember that there are children from such backgrounds who make it”, and that cannot be disputed. However, what also cannot be disputed is something of which I became very aware during nine years as president of YMCA England, when I looked very closely at and came to admire the work being done with young offenders by the staff and volunteers. What became very clear was that so many of these young offenders had such horrific and sad stories behind them, with so much disruption in their lives, that it would have been a bit of a miracle had they not found themselves in trouble with the law. What is so important is that all who deal with such children are discovering that there is a need for them to be handled in a secure and intimate atmosphere, where it is possible to get behind the immediate situation that confronts us and understand where they come from and how they can be helped back into a productive role in society.

Any tendency to move still further away from secure homes of this kind is calamitous, not just because of the consequences for the children and the dangers of reoffending, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but because it makes for economic nonsense. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has estimated that the cost of offending by children is in the realm of £11 billion a year. That is an immense cost to society. We can get no satisfaction simply from punishing the young. We have to prevent them reoffending. If they are to stop reoffending, we have to get close to them in an environment that can ensure that they get back into a constructive role in society. The evidence is that in larger young offender institutions and other institutions of that kind this does not happen.

There is one other point that I must make, which is that as a society and state we ourselves have a responsibility for the children in our care. One of the most alarming and disturbing statistics that is seldom recognised on the scale that it should be is that, since 1990, 31 children have died in care in young offender institutions and secure establishments. Contrast that with the fact that there have been no deaths in secure children’s homes during that period. How is it that we can recognise that statistic yet move firmly in the opposite direction from the logical conclusion? On economic grounds and on humanitarian grounds—but very powerfully indeed on economic grounds—for any chance of being able to claim to be a civilised society in the treatment of our children, it is essential that we do the sensible thing. If we are going to strengthen anything in our penal system for the young it should be to strengthen, not diminish, the role of secure children’s homes.

20:41

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Linklater on her ability in presenting, and on securing, this debate on an important and valuable subject. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Shackleton on her excellent maiden speech. I found it quite moving, coming from the same parental and grandparental background that she does. She may find that that background is a real driver towards contributions on matters on which one feels strongly in this House—where good argument is heard with patience and respect, and where bad argument is rejected with mere politeness. I am sure that she will make a great contribution to our affairs.

I recognise in the speeches that have been made so far, and in some of the briefings that heralded this debate, the statistical soup that can surround this subject about offending children and young people. It points in many different directions but always produces the same unpalatable reduction, which is that we are not succeeding in reforming the activities of children in custody and sending them out quickly into society as people who will not go through the revolving door of custody, time after time. Unfortunately, the picture is of a very fast-revolving door.

The cohort of residents in custody has multiple issues to face up to. They are troubled and we do nothing to deal with that trouble constructively, except in a relatively small number of cases. We have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world, yet we have a higher recidivism rate among children than almost anywhere else in the world and, despite having spent many years looking at this subject, I do not quite understand what we are doing wrong. However, I believe that the kind of regime provided in local authority secure children’s homes has been far better designed to reform than anything provided in secure training centres or young offender institutions.

Five and a half years ago I chaired an inquiry for the Howard League for Penal Reform, of which I am currently the president, on the use of restraint, strip-searching and isolation among children in custody. It was not happening in local authority secure children’s homes. It was happening in other institutions. It is still happening in other institutions. The Howard League this year conducted a two-day evidence hearing that I chaired to see what had happened in the five years since the report was produced in 2006. Some good progress had been made; the provisions made for young people in custody have improved the situation, and I share the view that it is good news that far fewer young people are in custody—particularly those between 14 and 16 years of age—than before. Nevertheless, far too much restraint is still being used.

What is it that secure children's homes provided that enabled us to avoid those pitfalls of restraint, strip-searching and isolation? It was a number of qualities. First, they were small; they are small. It is within something that is much more like home that children learn the habits of a home. One of my observations, having visited secure children's homes and other custodial institutions for children and young people, is that most of the young people in them have never enjoyed the sort of home to which my noble friend Lady Shackleton referred movingly in her maiden speech. Putting them into an animalised, brutalised structure contributes to that feeling of dissociation.

Next, secure children's homes have high ratios of well trained staff, specialist staff who understand children. It is self-evident that we should deal with children as children, not as criminals, if we are to succeed in reforming them and turning them from children into adults, rather than from child criminals into recidivists. Next, they have education. Secure children's homes, in my view, have a very high standard of education. With that, they combine therapeutic and behavioural provision tailored to children's needs. That provision is not being made adequately in the other parts of the child and youth custodial setting. Therefore, the Government should be looking at more, smaller units, far more like secure children's homes, rather than going in the opposite direction, towards larger institutions, which appears to be policy at present.

20:46

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for this opportunity to discuss the impact of budget caps on the work of secure children homes in reducing children's reoffending rates. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on her excellent maiden speech, which I found personally moving. I am sure that we shall hear a lot more from her in future. The noble Baroness made a strong case for not closing secure children's homes. From my experience as a juvenile court chairman in inner London for 20 years, they have clearly retained their reputation of providing the best service for those children, for whom that kind of placement was essential.

I want to address how, by spending more resources at an earlier stage of those children's lives, there would be less need for the state to be locking up children. Keith Joseph's speech in 1978 on the cycle of deprivation was made more than 30 years ago, and still we have a pattern of families where we know, or strongly suspect, that early intervention, support and mentoring may have prevented the pattern of offending that is so grossly expensive in both financial and personal ability terms. It is certainly good news that the number of juveniles offending who have been imprisoned has dropped overall, but there are also counterproductive aspects to these statistics, if the result is that young people who are given custodial sentences are imprisoned so far away from their families that any form of effective family therapy is virtually impossible.

There are other concerning aspects too, some of which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, showing that the percentage of black and minority-ethnic youngsters is rising and that the proportion of young men imprisoned for the first time is up by over one-third. Another worrying aspect is the number of imprisoned juveniles—one-third of boys and one-fifth of girls—who have reported that they felt unsafe at some point. Indeed we have just heard cited by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the appalling statistic which I will not repeat, but which I was going to use. The Youth Justice Board spends £268.9 million a year incarcerating children, which is 69 per cent of its spending. If you add to that that the estimated total costs to the UK’s economy of offending by children could be as much as £11 billion a year, there must be a case to be made for spending citizens’ money more productively.

The one obvious thing that we have not done, and still have no plan to do, is to keep records of just how far back in generation terms the pattern of criminal behaviour began in such families. It is almost as if as a nation we are too nervous of the results to do the necessary research. There is some research in existence showing that a staggering 63 per cent of boys with a convicted parent go on to offend and that children of prisoners are three times more likely to show delinquent behaviour. Surely the time has come to provide adequate research funding to ensure that these figures are available—and backward looking—in the future so that a sensible package of family support can be a first step.

Thankfully, all political parties have now accepted Frank Field’s and Graham Allen’s principle of early intervention as a necessary educational starting point and one which will save money in the long run, whether it is used for assessing and providing the support needs of children with SEN, who would otherwise fall behind their academic attainment level, or for deciding what support is needed for children from deprived or inadequate backgrounds. Funds for the necessary research to provide evidence of success rates among youngsters who have benefited from this kind of early intervention and support will also be essential. My own belief is that the sums saved will be considerable.

However, that should not of course mean that help and support for those who have ended up being imprisoned should be abandoned as if they were hopeless cases. Again, there are savings—financial and personal—that can be made, and why not follow up the idea suggested a year or two ago of setting up a young offender academy as part of the resources for this age group? The Government’s plans for more job training and actual work in prisons will be an important step in the right direction, but so, too, will be the need for help and support in finding a job and accommodation for those who have no families, particularly when they have served their sentence and need to settle back into the real world. This is another area where not nearly enough support is currently given.

On that note I shall end, as we are all much looking forward to hearing what the Minister will say in reply to this fascinating debate.

20:52

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold]

My Lords, I am more than grateful to slip in for two minutes at the end of this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Linklater on securing the debate and my noble friend Lady Shackleton on her moving maiden speech.

The House will be aware that some secure children’s homes are used for emergency admissions in cases of extreme family breakdown or other circumstances, which can sometimes include offending. The House will also be aware that, because many local authorities need to reduce budgets overall, they are currently streamlining such facilities by outsourcing them and sending children who need this care out of county or out of authority. The House will also be aware of the link between some of those children and the risk of future offending.

Are the Government taking any account of the delayed effects of this policy on costs, bearing in mind that these privately owned facilities can be between two and five times more expensive than those provided in-house? However, it is notoriously difficult to predict the level of that expense because the facilities obviously have to respond to emergency admissions, which cannot be predicted. More seriously, I hope that the Government are taking into account the incalculable risks for children at the extreme limits of their vulnerability—vulnerability described by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Shackleton—of being moved away from all that is familiar to them. I hope that they are also taking into account the effect on their subsequent life chances, which may include going on to offend. It is for this reason that I raise this category of concern within this debate.

20:54

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for bringing forward this very important debate. Ever since I have been in the House, I have admired her. A few years ago she took part in a debate that I initiated on women in prison. I was impressed with her knowledge then, and I have been impressed with her great experience in this area tonight. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on her wonderful maiden speech and thank her for sharing her experiences with us. I certainly look forward to many more contributions from her in the future. My noble friend Lord Judd called her a strong and formidable woman, so I welcome her to the team of strong and formidable noble Baronesses in the House.

How we care for children is of immense importance to everyone, but it is especially important to vulnerable children such as those who are held in secure children's homes. Any measures that prevent children getting into crime should be welcomed by us all. The fact that there will be fewer places in secure children's homes, as the number of children in custody is falling, is welcomed by people such as Frances Done, chair of the Youth Justice Board, who in May this year said:

“We are pleased that fewer children and young people”—

especially in the younger age group—

“are entering custody and that prevention and rehabilitation work under way in the community is paying off”.

However, other experts in the field, such as Frances Crook, director of the Howard League, have said that if children are to be locked up, then secure children's homes are the best place rather than sending them to a young offender institution or a secure training centre, as they have higher reoffending rates and lower levels of educational achievement.

The Ministry of Justice announced in June that the Youth Justice Board is to be abolished as part of the Government’s drive to reduce the number of quangos, and despite the excellent work that it has done to reduce the level of crime and reoffending. Your Lordships’ House voted by a large majority not to include it in the Public Bodies Bill. At that time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said:

“It would be real sacrilege if we took out of the criminal justice system something that works, whatever the motives that are put forward, and introduced something that has not worked and has not been tried”.

Under the new system which will be transferred to local government with the youth offending teams, the Government say that there needs to be a local joined-up approach to address the multiple disadvantages that many young offenders have and the chaotic lifestyles that many lead. It seems to me that local authorities will in future play a bigger part and bear more of the costs. As criminal justice is not a devolved matter, but local government is, how will that work in England and Wales? Will there be separate and different standards in England and in Wales? For example, will English and Welsh children be treated differently? How will standards be set and who will set the standards to ensure that all of our children will be treated in a similar manner?

What discussions have the coalition Government had with the Welsh Government on this matter, and if there have been any, can the Minister say what has been the result? How can the Ministry of Justice operate in Wales on this matter if it cannot dictate terms to local authorities in Wales? If we are to move over to that system, what thought has been given to that?

Work in the community to prevent criminal activity among young people has to start at an early age, working with parents and schools. However, with different systems in place in the two countries of England and Wales, much discussion must be held on these matters before the Youth Justice Board is abolished. For everyone's sake, I hope that this system works as well as the Youth Justice Board has in reducing crime and reoffending rates among children.

I would love to speak for longer and tell the House about my experiences with community policing and the way that it has helped to reduce crime and keep children out of trouble, but I am not able to. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

20:59

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is me or my colleagues in the choice of debates, but I am faced with the same problem I had a few days ago when replying to the debate on magistrates initiated by my noble friend Lord Dholakia; I now have six minutes to reply, rather than 12. However, I make no complaint because this has been a very good debate in which a number of specific issues have been raised. I will reply to all noble Lords on the matters that I cannot cover in this restricted time. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will be delighted to know that in a few days’ time, the question of the YJB will be brought back to this House for further debate. She has given me many good warnings that I must be ready to speak about Wales at that time.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Shackleton on her outstanding maiden speech. I now consider her fully equipped to play a full and active part in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—LASPOO to its friends—which will be here on 21 November. I expect that she will be getting her name down early to participate in that debate. I have a suspicion that I am going to need all the friends I can find.

As for the speech by my noble friend Lady Linklater, I got what I expected: a thoughtful introduction, full of useful statistics, and based on a deep commitment and wide experience. That is always the daunting thing for me when replying from this Dispatch Box to this kind of debate: that this House brings together great experience on these matters. I can assure the House that I will specifically respond to everything that has been said today, including all the suggestions and questions.

Secure children’s homes play a key role in the provision of suitable secure accommodation for young people on remand or serving custodial sentences. I have a long-standing admiration for the way in which they look after those placed in their care, so let me be clear that the Government remain committed to this sector. Secure children’s homes take children from both the criminal justice system and welfare placements. In respect of children from the criminal justice system, the homes are generally used to accommodate 12 to 14 year-olds; girls up to the age of 16, and 15 to 16 year-old boys with particular needs. As has been mentioned, the key point is that the staff-to-child ratios are good and help secure children’s homes to focus on attending to the physical, emotional, educational, health and behavioural needs of children in their care. It therefore comes as no surprise that nine out of the 10 secure children’s homes inspected by Ofsted this year received a rating of “good” or “outstanding”, with only one rated as “satisfactory”.

A number of noble Lords have talked about the problem of reoffending. The right way to improve public safety and reduce the number of victims is to reduce reoffending. There are a number of ground-breaking initiatives designed to help bring down the reoffending rate. Together with the YJB, we are piloting a number of financial incentive schemes to explore how we can further incentivise local authorities to reduce reoffending. We are setting up and encouraging the expansion of regional resettlement consortia to promote closer working between custodial establishments, youth offending teams and their partners in the voluntary sector. This will provide the opportunity for joint planning and commissioning of resettlement services.

The noble Baroness asked specifically about the work of secure children’s homes in reducing reoffending. Unfortunately, the present reliable statistical data showing the reoffending rate for each type of accommodation used in the secure estate is not a straightforward matter. As we have heard, secure children’s homes range from very small establishments housing only eight young people to larger buildings with a capacity to accommodate 38. Where small numbers are concerned, there is a greater risk that the statistical results may be skewed in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the placement of children in young offender institutions, secure children's homes and secure training centres is based on their needs. The age of the individual is also a factor. As a consequence, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons across the three types of accommodation and say whether one is better than another.

The safeguarding and welfare needs of all young people admitted to custody are taken extremely seriously across each sector of the secure estate. The placement of young people and their subsequent care are based on an assessment of their needs and risks conducted by their youth offending team and updated in conjunction with staff in the secure estate. These assessments focus on the young person as an individual and the range of factors that may have led to their offending.

Initiatives, such as the Keppel Unit, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Linklater, show that we are focused on improving outcomes for young people within the youth secure estate. The Government published their secure estate strategy in July 2011, and the consultation closed on 11 October. The Youth Justice Board is now carefully considering the responses received, so my comments on the future of the secure estate are necessarily curtailed until the consultation response is published early in the new year.

However, it is important that the fall in the number of children and young people in custody has not been distributed equally across all age groups. The biggest decrease has been seen for young people aged between 10 and 14 years old. It is the younger age group that is most likely to be placed in secure children's homes and secure training centres.

I hope this very brief response has reassured the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to maintaining the secure children's home sector and to reducing reoffending. In January we will see the outcome of the consultation and will issue our response. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to give the highest priority to those in our care.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

21:07

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

24: Clause 3, page 2, line 33, after “need” insert—
“(a)”

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, Amendments 24, 30 and 299B are tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Darzi. I hasten to state the obvious, which is that I am a relative ignoramus as regards the refinements of the delivery of health within a hospital. The other three noble Lords who have added their names to this amendment are by contrast as distinguished a trio of consultants as one could find. I must at once, as requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, give her apologies to the Committee for her inability to be here. She is well out of London.

Amendments 24 and 30 add to Clause 3 which in turn adds to Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Clause 3 is headed: “The Secretary of State’s duty as to reducing inequalities” but refers to NHS patients in different parts of England, not to differences between NHS and private patients within a single NHS hospital.

Other parts of the Bill which talk of equality of access and outcomes are similarly limited. Nowhere in this 445-page mammoth is there any clear statement, let alone requirement, as to equality of clinical treatment and healthcare between NHS and private patients within an NHS institution. Amendments 24 and 30 clarify that. Amendment 299B also clarifies that inessential care such as what one might call the hotel services—the quality of the accommodation, drugs prohibited by NICE standards and indeed treatment and care that is not a clinical priority—can still be provided privately on the basis of privilege. Those matters are, as I say, non-essential and we have put in—the four of us whose names are to these two amendments—Amendment 299B to make very clear that we are not seeking to row back on the status quo.

It was Aneurin Bevan during Second Reading on what would become the National Health Service Act 1946 who said:

“If people wish to pay for additional amenities, or something to which they attach value, like privacy in a single ward, we ought to aim at providing such facilities for everyone who wants them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/1946; col. 57.]

For example the state will provide a certain standard of dentistry free but if a person wants to have his teeth filled with gold the state will not provide that. It is in that vein that Amendment 299B stands in our four names but, and this is a big but, where there are two patients with the same essential clinical health needs—one an NHS patient, another a private patient; one in a public ward, the other in a private ward—the one with the fat wallet can buy priority and buy his way to the top of the queue. That cannot be allowed in our National Health Service. It would be fundamentally against the spirit of the NHS and directly contrary to the ideals on which it was founded.

In a Britain that is becoming more divided in terms of living standards at a rapid rate the maintenance of the ideals of the original NHS for many of us are absolutely integral to our sense of citizenship and sense of comfort in an increasingly differentiated and diverse society. We must not on any account allow under the new regime a—no doubt inadvertent—two-class service to develop in NHS hospitals with regard to essential care. In saying that, I want to make it abundantly clear that neither amendment will touch private institutions that have no NHS connection—they are free to carry on doing what they will, how they will. That is an aspect of freedom in this country on which I would not for a minute seek to trespass.

The dangers are that the privatising and commercialising, as they are fairly called, will, as I say, bring into the NHS a much wider and deeper engagement with the private sector and that could, and I again say inadvertently, develop into a two-class NHS. Let us be clear: the NHS and the private sector march to different drums. The NHS is concerned solely and only with equal free treatment and fair access to any of us who go to its institutions. The private sector, which I do not wish to unduly disparage—which is made up of public companies and many very commercial entities—is none the less first, secondly and thirdly in the business of profit. It is no good saying that doctors and consultants working within the private sector, unless they are sole traders so to speak, will be immune from that commercialisation, the managerialism that goes with it and the pressures that are inevitably engaged when working for a commercial entity.

Amendment 30 strengthens the original ideals of the NHS. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister what I have said to him previously: I believe that it will cement public support for what is good in this Bill. There is much that is good and I am not for a minute saying that extending the contact with the private sector is wrong. In many respects, it can be good and can bring new resources into the NHS. But that is all at risk unless we put firmly and clearly in the Bill that we will not allow a two-class service of clinical treatment and healthcare within an NHS institution.

I want briefly to refer to the deluge of letters, petitions and the like which everyone in this House has received. In my 14 years here, there have been far more letters on this Bill than any two others put together. My noble friend Lord Razzall mumbles that there were more for hunting. I have to say to him that I do not think there were, but be that as it may. I just mention the Coalition of UK Medical Specialty Societies, which saw the issue that my amendment is designed to address. It wrote:

“Choice must be for patients rather than provider; the provider choosing the simple cases and leaving the unprofitable, more complex cases (elderly, chronic illness, disabled) to fight for remaining funds will disadvantage patients”.

A petition from more than 400 public health doctors and specialists from within the NHS and academe said:

“As public health doctors and specialists”,

we think that the Bill could usher,

“in a significantly heightened degree of commercialisation and marketisation that will … widen health inequalities”.

It is to prevent that widening that this amendment is put down.

Finally, the BMA, which has informally backed this amendment, in one of its key points states:

“Increasing patient choice should not be a higher priority than tackling fair access and health inequalities”.

We all say amen to that. I hope very much that the Government will accept these amendments. It may well be that on Report I will want to bring forward something to make clear that there should be some oversight of the provisions that these amendments seek to entrench, which might be through the monitors. But, for the time being, I hope that the Committee will warm to these amendments and the sentiments behind them. I beg to move.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments and in so doing remind your Lordships of my interest as consultant surgeon at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, an institution with private healthcare facilities that I would be entitled to use if I ever decided to do so. This group of amendments is very important because it deals with an area of anxiety with regard to potential consequences that will follow removal of the private patient cap. Removing that cap may well provide important opportunities for NHS foundation trusts in the future, opportunities that they may well need to exploit. But in so doing, we need to be certain that access to clinical facilities in NHS institutions for either NHS patients or those in private healthcare facilities in NHS institutions is based purely upon clinical need and that no other factor influences access to those facilities.

I believe that in the majority of circumstances that will always be the case, as it has been to date. But with the important changes in this Bill with regard to the role of potential private practice in NHS institutions, we need to be absolutely certain that any anxieties or opportunities for misunderstanding are dealt with at an early stage. So in bringing forward these amendments at this stage, one hopes that there is an opportunity for the Government to explore how they plan to deal with any potential tensions and what security the current Bill as we consider it, and any potential amendments in the future or well established working practices in the NHS to date, would protect against a situation developing where access to facilities was determined by anything other than absolute clinical priority. For this reason I strongly support the amendments being brought forward at this stage in the hope that the noble Earl might be able to provide some clarity on the approach that Her Majesty’s Government might take in regard to these matters.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, 53 years ago, after seven years in full-time clinical research followed by 18 months as a first assistant in a neurological department with an honorary senior registrar contract, at the age of 35 I was appointed as a consultant in the NHS. But since at the time I had not even reached a salary of £2,000 a year, on being appointed as a consultant I chose to take a maximum part-time contract to do limited private practice, if only for financial reasons. In fact, it was a very interesting experience. I did this only for a few years before I became a full-time academic.

At that time every NHS hospital had a private ward or had the opportunity, as was the case in the regional neurological centre in Newcastle Upon Tyne, such that on my ward of 28 beds I was entitled, if I so wished, to use four single rooms for private patients. The advantage of that arrangement, which was widespread throughout the country, was that the consultants working in that kind of hospital had the right to be geographically whole-time at the hospital. They were not being diverted away to distant private hospitals. They could look after their patients, both private and public, on the same ward and give them equal standards of care. The only real advantage for the private patients was that they had single rooms.

Many years later, along came Barbara Castle, who was the Secretary of State for Health and who later became the much respected Lady Castle. By that time I was a full-time academic with no private practice. I took private patients under my care into hospital, as I had to do if they came from overseas. In order to take advantage of the research facilities in my department, they had to be treated as private patients. However, under pressure from the trade unions, the Government worked through a process of gradually removing private patient beds from NHS hospitals so that, in the end, in the three major hospitals in Newcastle Upon Tyne we had one private bed in each hospital. The result was that, as an academic with major research facilities for the investigation of neuromuscular disease, I had to refuse patients referred to me from the United States, Canada, Australia and elsewhere because there were no private hospitals which could provide the facilities needed for the investigation of these patients, and there were no private beds into which they could be admitted. I look back on the period before that, when there were private beds in NHS hospitals, with great interest. I think that it was an excellent arrangement.

This is why I strongly support the proposal that the cap on private patient beds in NHS hospitals, foundation trusts and so on be removed, but I agree that there should be a restriction so that the opportunity for such beds to be established for private patient care must not be excessive. However, the advantage is that the NHS will gain substantially from the income derived from those private beds. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has enunciated the principle that the standards of clinical care for public and private patients in those hospitals should be entirely comparable. The only advantage for private patients would be a better standard of accommodation, as Amendment 299B indicates, which is wholly acceptable. The quality of medical care should be identical. For that reason, I support the principle.

On the other hand, the wording of Amendment 30 is not satisfactory. Although I accept the principle of equal standards of clinical care, the amendment would make it impossible to provide the improved standards of accommodation to which Amendment 299B refers. The principle is important and I would support it in general, but the amendment needs a little adjustment.

[Lord Ribeiro]

My Lords, I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said. His historical perspective reflects my own experience, both as a young trainee working at the Middlesex Hospital, where we had a separate private wing, and then post the decision made by Mrs Barbara Castle when the private wings lost their beds. The net result was that, when I became a consultant in 1979, there were very few private beds in my own hospital. I was a maximum part-time consultant as well. We saw a proliferation of new private hospitals in Brentwood—the Nuffield—Chelmsford and Southend; the whole area sprouted new private hospitals. I would see my private patients at the beginning of the day and then again at night while fulfilling my NHS commitment, which I am quite happy to say I did. I could travel 100 miles in a day seeing private patients, whereas previously those patients were in the same hospital. The junior doctors knew where the consultants were and if there was a problem on the ward they could consult them and bring them back.

There is another dimension to moving private beds out of the NHS, which is that I used to be able to take my trainees with me to the private hospital to assist me with my operations. That was a level of learning that they would often not have the opportunity to access, particularly if it was related to overseas patients with conditions that they had not previously seen. It was a learning opportunity which is now more or less lost. Junior trainees are very rarely able to escort their consultants to work in the private sector.

As to the private cap, it will not surprise your Lordships that two big hospitals in London, the Royal Marsden and Great Ormond Street, have a massive number of private patients who seek treatment from those hospitals because they are the best in the world. A cap in that situation is against the best interests of those hospitals. Robert Naylor, the chief executive of UCLH, has been quoted as saying that it is entirely transparent where the money from private patients treated in the NHS goes: back into supporting services within the NHS. Maintaining the cap on private earnings in the NHS will damage the NHS. Patients who come in to have their treatment privately in the NHS are treated by consultants who treat both NHS and private patients. There is no difference between the two. To deny those hospitals the opportunity of attracting patients from overseas and the benefits going back to the NHS would be a disservice.

I have looked at this amendment and, clearly, the intention is to ensure equality of care. I was watching the monitor upstairs in my office and heard the introduction to this debate. I am sorry that I was not here. The meaning behind the amendment is right. There should be equality. I am not sure whether it can be achieved in the way that has been described. The noble Lord was quite right in saying that the clinical treatment—this is not about food, beds or those sorts of facilities—that is provided should be the same.

21:00

As a working consultant until just three years ago I would say this. We used to have a system in the NHS whereby we had block booking for outpatient appointments. Four patients would be booked at 9 am, another four patients at 9.05 am, another four patients at 9.10 am and so it went on until all the patients were booked in until 11 am. Clearly, they did not have two minutes each. Patients were left sitting in the clinics waiting and waiting and waiting until they could be seen. I decided after some time that that was not acceptable and made the point of giving my NHS patients appointments in exactly the same way as my private patients. They all had 15 minutes each. It was exactly the same as in the private sector. Some private patients might just have a mole so it might take me only five or 10 minutes to make a diagnosis. For someone with bowel cancer it could take 30 minutes. That way, you can manage your practice. There is a requirement for individual consultants to be conscious of the fact that they must deliver the same standard of care irrespective of how that patient finances their treatment.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

I intervene to dispel the view that it has always been even and equal for private and non-private patients in the NHS. When I was an Opposition Member of Parliament, before the 1997 election, the largest complaint that I had, which I had regularly, surgery after surgery, was from people who had some serious condition. They had eventually got in to see the consultant, frequently having had to wait a long time. Then they were told, “Yes, you need an operation but the waiting list is 18, 20 or 24 months. However, if you come in to see me next week in my private practice, I can do the operation in two weeks’ time”. People found that offensive.

That is why, during the passage of the Bill on foundation trusts, there was outrage on the Back Benches that we were going to revert to the situation where it seemed not to matter whether people were public or private patients.. That came because Back-Benchers insisted that they did not want to return to the old system.

I am actually in favour of varying the cap and the noble Lords who tabled the amendment actually had the right idea. But for us to pretend in this House that there was once a glorious age where everyone was treated equally is quite honestly offensive to all those people who knew that they were getting a poor service and were not getting adequate access to the healthcare they needed and had the right to receive.

[Lord Patel]

I rise briefly to comment on this amendment. As far as declaring an interest is concerned, I have not seen private patients because my contracts were such that academics did not do private practice. I have a family member who is a consultant. My daughter is a consultant at the Marsden where I hear there is a high percentage of private patients. I have no idea whether she does private practice or not. I have not seen any benefits of it. Maybe they will come.

However, I remember when I was a student and was training in King Edward VII Hospital in Windsor, in Ascot and other places there were private wings in the same hospital. Yes, the care provided was equal for NHS and private patients. However, one difference today is that NHS patients now receive quite a significant part of their care provided by doctors in training. If we are to ask for equality in how patients are looked after, we must say not only that those patients in private wings cannot jump the queue but that there must be the same quality of care provided by all the medical staff who work in the NHS.

I have one other question, which I would like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. How would we manage his amendment when there are to be qualified providers, which might provide care not only for NHS patients but for private patients under their own terms and conditions? How would we manage those qualified providers to ensure that they behave in the same way in dealing with NHS patients?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

On the question addressed to me, I do not know whether I can give an off-the-cuff precise answer to the noble Lord, but my apprehension is that, in NHS hospitals with private facilities or a private ward, there is an attempt to deliver comparable clinical care to private and NHS patients. As the noble Baroness has just said, there are cases where that plainly does not happen, but that is the ideal and it is achieved in many hospitals—I suspect that the Royal Marsden is one of those. All that the amendment seeks to do is to put that ideal into the Bill so that it is also law.

I do not want to waffle on now about the delivery of that ideal in practice—I say “waffle” because what I would say might not be impressive to you gentlemen who are treading the wards—but I believe that it is possible and can be done. I am encouraged by my three co-signatories to the amendments to believe that this can be done and delivered. As I said, that may require an amendment to the provisions of the Bill that deal with Monitor so as to give Monitor an explicit role in policing this requirement of equality of clinical treatment and care.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will continue to waffle on, because it seems to me that he has put his finger on the real concerns that so many have about this Bill and why people are so opposed to it. The continuing puzzle is why we have this Bill at all when the NHS was in such good condition at the time of the last election. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, might get cross that I come back to this point, but that puzzlement is shared by almost everyone working in the National Health Service and certainly by most patients.

We do not understand what this Bill is all about, unless the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right that, essentially, this is about taking the NHS on a journey to become a second-rate service for the poor and needy. One can see the building blocks that are being put in place. First, the Secretary of State seeks to downplay his or her responsibility for the provision of services. Secondly, we see the NHS starved of resources.

The NHS—I should perhaps remind the House that I chair an NHS foundation trust—is supposedly receiving a real-terms increase in its resources, but I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that real-terms increase has not reached the service. I do not know where that money is. Either the money is being kept as a bung for GPs and clinical commissioning groups or for the costs of the reorganisation and redundancies that will need to be paid, or, perhaps, it is being held in a fund that will be let out when the NHS reaches crisis point this winter. I do not know, but I can tell the noble Earl that, up and down the country, NHS trusts are facing considerable financial challenges. It can be the only explanation for why the Government are putting so much less emphasis on dealing with waiting times. We had the amendment from my noble friend Lord Warner early on. I do not think the noble Earl was able to convince the House that this Government really are concerned about the waiting times for patients. The risk is, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, that we will go back to the bad old days of long waiting times, when consultants faced with patients encouraged those patients to go for private treatment. There are so many examples of this perverse practice that I fear we are going back to it again.

Another factor in where we are going is the noble Earl’s refusal to refer to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. All we hear from the Government is this generic term “provider”. Of course we understand that, because it is the mantra of Ministers that there is no distinction; the qualification is qualified providers. So the NHS institutions are simply to be seen as a provider, no different from private sector providers. No wonder Ministers are prepared only to talk about commissioning as being part of the NHS. It is almost as if the provider side has been completely written out of the script when it comes to the National Health Service. It is quite clear that, notwithstanding the fact that Monitor will also have to have a role in integration, its real emphasis is on promoting competition. When one considers the issue of the private patient cap, one has to do it in the context of where one thinks the Bill is going.

I must say that I disagreed for once with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I have very great reservations about the removal of the private patient cap. I certainly understand that there is a need to review how it is working. If there is local support through the members of foundation trusts or the governing body, maybe even through the local health and well-being board, to remove the cap to that extent, I can see that there may be a case for it. However, there needs to be some control to ensure that NHS organisations do not go mad and seek to have a huge increase in their private patient income, because that would be bound to distort their whole behaviour and how they approach NHS patients. I well remember when I first worked at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, where we had a private patient ward—it was called the Mayfair ward, for some reason. I am sure that the doctors and nurses there would say that the clinical care was just the same, but my goodness me it was very interesting to see the succession of the matron, the senior physiotherapists and the senior consultants walking down to that ward and the amount of time they spent there.

Having a large amount of private care within an NHS organisation is almost certain to distort how that organisation approaches NHS patients. That is why this group of amendments is very important. I hope that the Minister will consider coming back on Report and taking part in our further discussions about the private patient cap. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, should be in no doubt that there is widespread suspicion throughout the National Health Service at the Government’s motivations in relation to this Bill. This is one of the core issues that lead to that suspicion.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should be a little bit careful before he comes to this Committee and speaks as though it were Second Reading and as though he were not chairman of the Heart of England trust, which I do not doubt has a goodly number of private patients in its midst. He should bear in mind that it was the last Labour Government who introduced private sector involvement into the NHS in 2007; the independent sector was paid on average 11 per cent more than the NHS price.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords—

[Earl Howe]

I am sorry, but I am going to finish. The private sector was paid £250 million for operations that never happened. I have a very interesting quote here:

“The private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/07; col. 250WH.]

That is a quote from none other than Andy Burnham. It is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to introduce matters to this amendment that have nothing to do with my noble friend’s point. My noble friend’s point was quite separate from the point that the noble Lord was talking about.

21:45

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not know why the noble Earl mentioned the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. I declared my interest but I am clearly speaking on behalf of the Opposition here. I thought that was a really unworthy remark. As for the general point being made, yes, we invested in the private sector. Why did we do that? It was because we wanted to tackle waiting times. Why did we have to tackle those? It was because there was a real issue in some hospitals with consultants and their productivity. That is why we introduced independent sector treatment centres and why waiting times were reduced to 18 weeks. As for this issue, the noble Earl says that I have gone outwith this amendment but I refer him back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who talked, quite rightly, of the risks of a two-tier service. That is exactly the issue of concern that I have with the heart of the Bill.

[Earl Howe]

I have no issue with the private sector acting to provide services for NHS patients, and never have had. My point was that it is a bit rich on the part of the noble Lord to attack the private sector in the way that he did. It is also a bit rich to say that the NHS has been starved of money. If the country had been foolish enough to elect the Labour Government at the election last year, the NHS budget would have been cut. It would not have been kept abreast of inflation, as we have done. It is absolutely monstrous for the noble Lord to pretend otherwise and the caricature that he has given us of this Bill, and what it does, does him no service whatever.

I would like to move on to my noble friend's amendment. Amendments 24 and 30, introduced by my noble friend, would impose on the Secretary of State a duty to have regard to the need to prevent inequalities of treatment and healthcare developing between NHS and private patients. To start with, it is helpful to have clarity around the definitions as there is sometimes scope for misunderstanding. I believe that the amendments are referring to the potential for inequality between services that are paid for by the NHS and those that patients can pay for privately within an NHS hospital. As my noble friend knows, that is of course not the same as the issue of NHS-funded services being provided by private or voluntary organisations. A patient funded by the NHS is an NHS patient, wherever he or she is treated.

In addressing the issues raised by my noble friend, I feel that I have to begin with a basic point. I am not sure, although my noble friend may yet convince me, that it is a matter for public policy to have a target of narrowing the outcomes between NHS and private-funded healthcare. I understand that many people feel uncomfortable at the idea of private-funded healthcare, especially within an NHS hospital. It has always been a controversial subject for Parliament yet the truth, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Ribeiro, is that private healthcare has always coexisted alongside the NHS. Some people will always wish to pay to be treated in more comfort or more quickly than a publicly funded healthcare system can afford and, at the margin, there will always be some treatments that are clinically available but which are not considered cost-effective for the NHS to fund. Some people will want to pay for those and, in a free country, I do not believe that it is the role of the Government to stop that.

However, I do not believe that there is a gaping chasm between the types of clinical treatment offered by the NHS and by private healthcare. The NHS aims to offer a comprehensive health service and, by comparison with many other countries, the private-funded healthcare sector here is relatively small. This illustrates the high degree of public confidence in the NHS as an institution, in that relatively few people decide to pay for a private alternative. Furthermore, rather than making comparisons with private healthcare, we believe that the Secretary of State should be focusing on improving the quality and equity of the services available to those who use the NHS. That is why the Bill introduces for the first time a duty to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities, and that clearly emphasises our commitment to fairness across the health service. It also recognises the reality that there are many stark variations in quality and access within the services that the NHS funds before we start looking at the comparison between NHS and private healthcare.

In addition, the Bill places a new duty on the Secretary of State to exercise functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services. The Secretary of State will therefore be responsible for doing all that he can to ensure that the NHS provides the best quality care to all its patients, no matter what treatment they are receiving or when they are receiving it. The aim of the Government and the Bill is to create a system that delivers world-class healthcare and healthcare outcomes for all NHS patients.

I understand that there is some residual concern that private healthcare might represent a better deal for patients treated by NHS providers but we do not believe that this is the case. Ethically and professionally, clinicians are required to treat all their patients to the same standard and should not discriminate in any way. It would be wrong to suggest that the vast majority who provide an excellent standard of care would do that. We have in place a robust system of service quality regulation that the Bill strengthens and makes more accountable. Fundamentally, the GMC’s Good Medical Practice states that the overriding duties for doctors include making the care of patients a doctor’s first concern and never discriminating unfairly against patients or colleagues. This means that if a doctor were treating private patients to a better clinical service, they would be in breach of these principles and could therefore be putting their registration at risk.

Similarly, any doctor who inappropriately attempts to persuade patients to use private services for their own gain would be in serious breach of medical ethics. For example, the department guidance on NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private care says this:

“NHS doctors who carry out private care should strive to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between their NHS and private work”.

Indeed, the GMC’s own guidance states:

“You must give patients the information they want or need about … any conflicts of interest that you, or your organisation, may have”.

It makes the point again, in Good Medical Practice:

“You must not put pressure on patients to accept private treatment”.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

If the Minister is correct in his description of the status quo, why does he think that three distinguished consultants, who are in the thick of it, asked to add their names to my amendment?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have yet to hear from at least one of those consultants. Clearly it is for them to explain why they added their names. I am trying to explain to my noble friend that I see grave problems in accepting an amendment of this kind because in practice it is a non-issue, and because the idea that this is a matter for public policy is one that we should perhaps have a further conversation about. I am not convinced that my noble friend is introducing a matter that should go into statute. It is probably best if we defer further debate on this subject. I have listened carefully to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken. I am happy to have a conversation with him after the Committee stage. I understand the issue that he has raised and I hope that he will accept that, but I see considerable difficulties in trying to frame an amendment in a way that will do precisely what he wants.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

Could I help my noble friend? A sensible suggestion was made that this was more a role for Monitor than anything that should be in an amendment to the Bill. Would my noble friend agree that when this comes back, either later in Committee or on Report, we should look at whether Monitor should carry out the new duty, proposed in the Bill, to reduce inequalities? That might be a better way of moving forward.

[Earl Howe]

I shall be happy to look at that. Of course, Monitor has a role in making sure that a foundation trust adheres to the conditions of its authorisation, one of which is that its principal purpose will be to serve NHS patients. There could be mileage in that and I would be happy to look at it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his careful response to the debate. I also warmly thank all noble Peers who have taken part in it. It is worth putting on the record that not a single person spoke against the amendment; I think all but one spoke warmly for it. My noble friend said twice that I sought to introduce an inappropriate policy matter into the Bill. This is not a policy, it is a principle—a very fundamental principle. Indeed, the Minister himself, earlier in his response, talked with some pride of the fact that the Secretary of State has to reduce inequalities. That is the same principle, although the area of the Bill that deals with it is not about inequalities between NHS patients and private patients but about those between NHS patients in different parts of the country. It does not cover what is covered by the amendment.

However, I am grateful for the Minister’s offer of conversations afterwards, which I will happily take up. I will certainly want to co-ordinate not only with the three noble consultants who have added their names to the amendment but with others in the House who I know feel strongly about this. I feel sure that the wish and will is that this matter should be brought back at the next stage of the Bill, perhaps with better wording—several Peers referred to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Amendments 25 and 25A not moved.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

26: Clause 3, page 2, line 34, after “England” insert “in rural and urban areas”

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

My Lords, I shall be brief, bearing in mind the hour. What I have to say about Amendment 26 applies to all the amendments in this group. Their aim is quite simple: to ensure that those working in the health service and those who are its patients in rural areas are not forgotten as we plough through this enormous Bill. I hope that we will be able to improve the quality of services, protect and improve public health and reduce inequalities in rural areas as we do so. The Bill has not been rural-proofed. Although it is about the National Health Service, too often when we discuss the NHS the emphasis is on urban, rather than rural, areas.

I have declared my interest, as I did at Second Reading. I am the honorary patron of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association and, as such, am very proud to raise issues for dispensing doctors—in other words, rural doctors and their colleagues. Dispensing doctors dispense from their surgeries. They live and work in rural areas, giving a service that is vital to rural patients. Without their dispensing from their surgeries, those living in the more remote areas of our countryside would have to travel first to their doctor’s surgery and then to the nearest pharmacy to get their prescribed medicines. These two places might be many miles apart. Mostly, this would be in areas where public transport services are very few and far between or, more likely, where there are none at all. Therefore, without the care and supervision provided by dispensing doctors, patients would face even more difficulties in getting the analysis of what they need and the correct medicine than they do at present.

Many patients in rural areas do not drive, especially women, older patients, those with disabilities, those with longer-term illnesses and those with small children. In addition, families increasingly cannot afford to run two cars. Therefore, if the main breadwinner needs the car to travel to and from work, the remaining partner finds it difficult to travel distances to collect medicines or prescriptions. That is why the one-stop shop of a dispensing doctor’s surgery is so necessary. Rural areas must not be forgotten in the turmoil of changing the National Health Service in the fundamental ways outlined in the Bill.

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending the annual conference of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association in Chester. I heard at first hand the worries that dispensing doctors and those who work with and for them face. They need to be consulted as changes are proposed. They feel—rightly or wrongly—that they are not given a fair crack of the whip at the present time and that their needs appear to be subsumed under the viewpoint of those working in the overall NHS. If the term “rural” is spelt out in the Bill, it would be much more difficult in future to pass over the needs and aspirations of those working in the health service in rural areas and of the patients themselves, whose involvement is so important.

I feel particularly passionate about these issues, and hope that the Minister will understand my reasoning and have sympathy towards it. I beg to move.

22:00

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, given the hour, I shall be brief. I understand exactly why the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, has tabled the amendment. I come from the south-west and my GP practice is 25 miles from where I live. The hospitals are 25 or 50 miles away. The noble Baroness and I share that sort of background. The amendment would work in the south-west, the north-west, the north-east, or even north-east Lincolnshire. We have factors of distance, sparsity and rural poverty which are often hidden in poorly measurable clusters.

Before I came here I had a view about policy and legislation being made in a bubble in the south-east and being very metropolitan-based. I had hoped that when I arrived here I would find to the contrary, but I confess that I have not. For a while I was linked with a Defra team and corresponded with a Defra Minister about rural-proofing legislation. It is fair to say that he was not hugely optimistic, but someone really needs to say, “Would it work in a rural area?”. My noble friend Lord Greaves has already started this job on the Bill and has tabled an amendment—and I fear there may be more—about district councils. They play a hugely vital part in areas of rural England that have not become unitary authorities. In one or two areas of the Bill—perhaps in a few more—there are instances where district councils need to be factored in.

Perhaps the Government should have some sort of rural policy champion—I hesitate to use the word tsar. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would give us his assurance that that will happen for this Bill.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gibson is to be congratulated. I particularly indentify with her remarks about dispensing chemists. As she knows, I supported her on this when I was on the other side of the House, and the issue is close to my heart. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, have raised a very valid issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, and all the amendments in this group, highlight the importance of ensuring that neither rural nor urban areas are affected by health inequalities. I quite understand the noble Baroness’s concerns—especially given that rural areas have unique circumstances that affect their health needs, such as a diffuse population and long travelling times for patients.

I therefore acknowledge that some significant issues face rural and urban areas, as was highlighted by the Marmot review. In particular, there are concentrations of shorter life expectancy and greater illness, and these tend to occur in some of the poorest areas of England, most of which are urban areas of deprivation. There are particular challenges with the provision of services in rural areas due to the higher cost of delivering services in more locations and the greater sparsity of rural communities.

However, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s intentions, I do not feel that the amendments are the most effective way to achieve her aims. Existing reference to “England” or “its area” in the Bill already includes every type of population, including rural and urban populations. The responsibilities for commissioning are absolute across all the communities and individuals for whom they have responsibility. There is no discrimination between different areas. That principle runs throughout the legislation. Moreover, the fundamental and unique change we are making to commissioning is to give local GPs responsibility for securing services for their patients. That vital principle, above all others, will make a decisive break from the past by ensuring that the needs of much smaller groups of patients can be taken into account by the commissioners.

A CCG will be exercising its statutory functions appropriately only if it is meeting the reasonable needs of all the people for whom it is responsible, not just those in particular demographic areas. The guidance on commissioning which the board must issue under the power in new Section 14Z6 could, of course, cover issues relating to commissioning in rural and urban areas.

Although the noble Baroness’s amendments are unnecessary, they could also be damaging. That is because there is the potential under some of the amendments, however inadvertently, to limit the scope of the responsibilities which the Bill places on CCGs. Amendments 188 and 114 could limit the effect of the scope of the duty on reducing inequalities to a duty only in relation to reducing inequalities and access between rural and urban areas. That would not include the duty to tackle the variety of factors which can affect a person's ability to access the care that they need, such as socioeconomic background and ethnicity. The changes proposed to the Secretary of State's duty in new Subsection 1B are particularly problematic in their impact. The Secretary of State may no longer have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England but only between people in urban and rural areas. Similarly, Amendment 190 could limit the duties regarding reducing inequalities in outcomes to inequalities in outcomes between patients in rural and urban areas only. So I have concerns about the limitations that the amendments may impose.

Despite all that, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill adequately provides for her worthy intentions—due, in particular, to its coverage of the whole of England. With that in mind, she may consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lady Thornton for their involvement in this short but important debate. I thank the Minister for what I think was his sympathetic reply and his explanation of the amendments, which was very helpful. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Amendments 27 to 33 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: The Secretary of State's duty as to promoting autonomy

Amendment 34 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.09 pm.