House of Commons
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of front-line staffing levels in the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
We fully recognise how important front-line staff are to the provision of high-quality care. Local organisations are best placed to plan the work force who are required to deliver safe and high-quality services to patients.
Graeme Morrice
The Prime Minister promised to cut the deficit and not the national health service. Can the Minister tell us what has changed?
Mr Burns
Nothing has changed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the NHS budget is a protected budget, and during the lifetime of the present Parliament it will receive real-terms increases. What the hon. Gentleman may not know is that the number of full-time equivalent clinical staff working in the NHS today is higher than it was in May 2010 and September 2009.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Over the weekend, the Minister will have seen a number of reports in the press that tens of thousands of NHS jobs were to go. Is he aware of any evidence that that is the case, or is it pure trade union scaremongering?
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
The reality is, of course, that the report from the Royal College of Nursing revealed that thousands of front-line nursing posts are being cut, and that last night a leaked report on commissioning revealed further bad news for front-line staff: that the Government plan to privatise large swathes of the NHS, making GPs “bit-part players”. Does it remain Government policy to promote, in the words of the report,
“a strong and vibrant market”
in the NHS, and, in the words of the Prime Minister, to
“drive the NHS to be a fantastic business”?
Mr Burns
The report that was published at the weekend is deeply flawed. It is outrageous for an organisation to seek to scare people for the sake of cheap publicity. That report is as flawed as the report that was published a year ago. Far from there being the 50,000 cuts to which it referred, since May 2010 the number of doctors has risen by 3,500, the number of consultants by 1,600, the number of registrars by 2,100 and the number of qualified radiography staff by 549. Moreover, the number of managers and administration officers has fallen by 14,000 to release money for improved health care.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Front-line staffing levels come under particular pressure in the winter months because of the incidence of winter flu. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that at Kettering general hospital, almost 60% of front-line staff have now been inoculated against flu? That compares very well with last year’s national average of 35%.
Mr Burns
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating staff at Kettering general hospital on their responsible attitude, and urge other NHS staff throughout the country to follow their example. I am heartened to note that, as a result of the planning and activity that has taken place in the NHS, more staff are having flu jabs than did so last year.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
2. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the strategic review of health inequalities by Professor Marmot.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The public health White Paper “Healthy lives, healthy people” gave details of our response to the Marmot review, and addressed the social determinants of health in people’s lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read it. Yesterday we launched the University college London institute of health equity with Professor Sir Michael Marmot as its director, supported by the Department. The institute will help to promote the findings of the review across the NHS, public health and local government, and will ensure that health inequalities remain a priority.
Nick Smith
Parts of my constituency are more than 1,200 feet above sea level. We know about the impact of cold homes and fuel poverty on health. According to the latest figures, cold has caused 25,000 excess deaths in England and Wales. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the need to invest in making our homes warmer to reduce the number of such deaths?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware of the 27,500 excess winter deaths that occur across the country, which is an increase of 17% on the deaths that occur at other times of the year. We have invested £30 million in total—£10 million to the Department of Energy and Climate Change and £20 million that local authorities can bid for—which will help to reduce those figures. It is encouraging that despite a very harsh winter last year the number of excess winter deaths has not risen.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
There is an access issue when considering the rural dimension of health inequalities. The dispensing doctors play a huge role in meeting need in rural areas, yet there are concerns about changes in regulation that have affected them. Will the Minister or one of her colleagues agree to meet me and representatives of that group to discuss their concerns?
Anne Milton
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already agreed to meet some people. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that health inequalities are not just something faced by the urban poor and deprived; they are also an issue in rural areas. We must make sure that people have adequate access.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the emphasis that Professor Michael Marmot places in his review of health inequalities—which I have read, so I can quote it—on
“giving every child the best start in life”,
on creating
“fair employment and good work for all”
and on reducing “inequalities in income”. Yet, under this Government, 90% of local councils will be forced to make cuts to Sure Start, unemployment continues to spiral—it is at a 17-year high—and, far from reducing income inequality, the House of Commons Library has calculated that an area such as mine in Hackney, which is one of the poorest in the country, will lose at least £9.6 million in cuts to housing benefit alone and a further £2.84 million through cuts to child tax credit. However desirable some of the organisational changes in public health are in principle, how can the Government possibly make progress on tackling health inequality in that context?
Anne Milton
How can the hon. Lady give Government Members lectures on health inequalities, given that those got worse under the previous Government? Life expectancy in Kensington and Chelsea is 85 whereas it is 74 in Blackpool, and that is after 13 years of a Labour Government. Family nurse partnerships have doubled and we are well on track to get the additional 4,200 health visitors. Through the public health Cabinet Sub-Committee we are determined to raise the standard of living for all, by providing new strategies on child poverty, social mobility, tax, pension retirement ages and so on. We are doing something, whereas the previous Government did nothing.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
3. What plans he has for the future of children's cardiac services in England; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The review of children’s congenital heart services is a clinically led, NHS review, independent of government. The Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts—JCPCT—on behalf of local NHS commissioners, will decide the future pattern of children’s heart surgery services in England. It is expected to make that decision next year.
Nic Dakin
I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the Royal Brompton’s judicial review verdict, does he agree that it is imperative that the breakdown of the assessments of all centres and all areas is fully disclosed, so that confidence in the Safe and Sustainable review can be restored?
Mr Burns
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is imperative that Ministers continue to remain totally independent of this review, so that we cannot be accused of interfering. As he knows, the JCPCT has said that it plans to appeal against the decision, and we will have to await the outcome of that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I fully appreciate the degree of independence that Ministers must preserve, but is there anything that this Minister can say on the methodology of the review to reassure the children’s heart unit at Southampton general hospital, which is rated the best in the country outside London, given that the review was, at one stage, excluding the entire population of the Isle of Wight in its calculations as to whether or not the unit should be in more than one of the four options being put forward?
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, although I will disappoint him by saying that I will not be led from my chosen path and start to voice an opinion. I will say, as I did say during the earlier debate that he attended, that of course it is not set in stone that there will be only four options chosen, as and when—the number could be more. That is dependent on the consultations and the decision of the JCPCT, but he will appreciate that I cannot seek to influence those decisions.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of debt for NHS hospitals.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Although the overall financial position remains healthy, we will continue to focus on the small number of organisations in the NHS that are struggling to manage their finances. We are working to help all NHS trusts to be sustainable providers of high-quality health care and move forward to foundation trust status. That will include, where appropriate, agreeing solutions to resolve the regrettable legacy of debt from the previous Government.
Sarah Newton
Despite the fact that the staff of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust have made big strides forward in improving patient care while delivering efficiency savings, the trust is saddled with historic debt, largely as a result of Labour accountancy measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is grossly unfair and will he meet me to find ways of writing off the remaining Labour debt so that my constituents can stop worrying about the future of the only acute hospital in Cornwall?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and completely concur. I have had the privilege of visiting Treliske hospital and seeing the good work that is being done there. In the course of the last financial year, the trust returned a surplus and it is projecting a surplus this year. As she knows, it has a legacy of debt that is being financed by a working capital loan. As with other NHS trusts, we are looking to ensure that through the process of becoming a foundation trust it will move from having legacy debts from the previous Government’s regime to being financially sustainable year-on-year while meeting the viability and balance sheet criteria for foundation trust status.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
When will the Secretary of State get a grip and sort out the problems of PFI long-term funding—[Laughter]—given the fact that Ministers promised to do that six months ago and that we are no nearer a resolution than we were before?
Mr Lansley
I do not know whether Hansard will record it, but the mirth with which that remark was met is an indication from Members that they know perfectly well, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, that the previous Labour Government left a terrible legacy of unaffordable PFI projects that were poor value for money when they were introduced. He knows perfectly well the position his local trust has been put in. We are working through that, and out of the work that has been done to resolve that poor legacy, we identified 22 NHS trusts which said that their PFI was an impediment. We are working with all of them to resolve that.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
5. What plans he has to allocate resources to local authorities when they assume responsibility for public health.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
9. What plans he has to allocate resources to local authorities when they assume responsibility for public health.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
10. What steps he plans to take to ensure that the allocation of public health funding reduces health inequalities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
For the first time, public health money will be ring-fenced and from April 2013 local authorities will receive that ring-fenced public health grant, targeted at areas with high population need and weighted for inequalities. In the preceding year—that is 2012-13—the shadow allocation will be published to allow local authorities to plan for the following year.
Emma Reynolds
As the Minister knows, public health problems are much more acute in areas of high deprivation. Wolverhampton primary care trust has been incredibly successful in reducing teenage pregnancies and increasing childhood nutrition. Will she reassure me in detail on exactly what weighting will be given to deprivation so that that good work in Wolverhampton can continue?
Anne Milton
We have commissioned advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and recently completed a survey of current NHS spend on public health. As the hon. Lady says, allocation needs to be weighted for inequalities and we are particularly keen that the committee develops a formula that captures within-area deprivation, which has been an issue in the past. Otherwise, affluent areas with pockets of deprivation tend to be ignored. If we want to improve the health of the poorest fastest, we must consider the heath need and deprivation.
Fabian Hamilton
Will the Minister reassure my constituents that when the money is transferred to local authorities, the staff will also be transferred from the NHS to those local authorities? Will there be sufficient resource within them to keep employing some of the excellent staff who currently work in the NHS?
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the excellent work that has been done despite the fact that public health budgets have not previously been ring-fenced. Indeed, what we have seen previously is PCTs raiding public health budgets for service provision, which is one reason why inequalities in health have got worse. It is extremely important that we transfer expertise, and employment law will ensure that all the transition is managed smoothly.
Grahame M. Morris
We are having problems getting reports published by the Department of Health. Will the Minister tell us about the public health outcomes framework by which we will measure progress in tackling and reducing health inequalities? What does the fact that the framework still has not been published say about the Government’s commitment to reducing health inequalities?
Anne Milton
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to rush this. It is extremely important that for the first time we will have a public health outcomes framework. There was no such framework under the previous Government, so it is important that we get it right. It will be an important signal to local authorities about what we expect them to achieve—with, as I have said, a focus on improving the health of the poorest fastest.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
As we transfer public health responsibilities to local Government—something that has been very broadly welcomed—is it not important that in addition to a clear definition of the funds that are going to be transferred, subject to a ring fence, we also have a clear definition of the responsibilities that local authorities will be expected to discharge in the new world? When can we expect that definition to be put into the public arena?
Anne Milton
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conditions will be attached to the ring-fenced money to determine how it can be spent, but any expenditure will need to refer to promoting or protecting public health. I hesitate to use the word “shortly”, which the previous Government used on many occasions, but it will be published along with the outcomes framework. It is important that we get it right.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent county council and Dover district council on their enthusiasm for taking over public health responsibilities and on the fact that they are looking at how to expand the resources that are available by considering the co-commissioning of social services with local GPs? Finally, may I inject a note of caution about the new community health trusts?
Anne Milton
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kent county council. As he rightly points out, these moves have been welcomed by many local authorities, many of which already do much to improve the health and well-being of their populations. It is extremely important that councils are eager to start, as I know they are, and eager to get that money and see the public health outcomes framework so that they can build on some of the good work they have already done.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Harlow has one of the highest levels of obesity in the east of England. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the resources that are directed to local authorities are properly used to solve such problems?
Anne Milton
Yes, this is not only about resources, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Some 60% of adults are overweight or obese, and those figures are even higher in some areas. It is extremely important not only that any money is followed by that public health outcomes framework, but that it is effective. This is not something we can simply chuck money at, as the previous Government did.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to raise the standards of care provided by health care workers and care assistants.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care in partnership with employers, unions, regulators, educators and others to develop a code of conduct and minimum training standards for health care support workers and adult social care workers in England. This will give employers and patients confidence in the employment and standards of staffing at all levels. I expect the final report and recommendations by September 2012.
Nick de Bois
The Secretary of State knows that I believe in less, not more, regulation, but given the increasing role and responsibilities of health care assistants, particularly with the elderly, does he agree that the time has come both to recognise their increased responsibilities and to provide safeguards at a national level by requiring them to be on a national register?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that health care and social care support workers do responsible jobs and that the responsibility for them lies principally with their employers and the staff who supervise them. We made provision in the White Paper we published last December for a process of assured voluntary registration. What I announced and referred to a moment ago will give a code of conduct and standards that will form a basis for an assured voluntary registration scheme in future.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
One key care standard is the time that people have to wait for their treatment. Labour got waiting times down to an historic low, and we warned the Secretary of State what would happen if he relaxed the 18-week standard. Figures show that the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks is up by 43% and, despite the U-turn that the Government have made on the use of targets, is not the problem that they have been so fixated on their top-down reorganisation that they lost control of waiting lists? Surely it is time for them to drop the Health and Social Care Bill and focus on the things that really matter to the people using and working in the NHS.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but that was all completely synthetic anger on the hon. Gentleman’s part. The average time that patients have been waiting in the NHS for treatment continues to be between eight and nine weeks. It has been so ever since the last election. The operational standard under the previous Government and now for the 18-week waiting time is that at least 90% of patients who are admitted for treatment should be admitted and treated within 18 weeks, and 95% of outpatients. Both of those operational standards continue to be met. Last week I made it clear that whereas the previous Government abandoned people who went beyond 18 weeks—and there were 250,000 of them who went beyond 18 weeks—we will not abandon those forgotten patients. We will make sure that they, too, are brought into treatment as soon as possible.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
8. What arrangements he has put in place to involve dental practitioners in the commissioning of dental services.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Responsibility for the commissioning of all dental services across primary, salaried and secondary care will sit with the NHS Commissioning Board. The vision for commissioning dental services sees dental local professional networks developing and delivering local service plans and quality improvement strategies across all dental services and providing clinical leadership and expertise at local level. This will enable dentists, working with commissioners and other local stakeholders, to ensure that all dental services are integrated and work together in the most efficient way.
Natascha Engel
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I still do not see why GPs are good enough to commission services locally, but dentists are not. Can he explain exactly how dentists are to be involved, in the same way as GPs are, in commissioning services locally?
Paul Burstow
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I just gave. The vision for commissioning dental services sees dental local professional networks developing and delivering local services and local quality improvement strategies. Beyond that, it involves local health and wellbeing boards working together closely, involving local clinicians through the networks that I referred to earlier. The answer is that local dental clinicians will be fully involved in the ways that I have just described.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
11. What steps his Department plans to take to assist hospitals with the cost of PFI payments.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
12. What steps his Department plans to take to assist hospitals with the cost of PFI payments.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
A Treasury review identified savings opportunities of up to 5% on annual payments in NHS PFI schemes. The lessons learned from the PFI savings pilot will be applied to all schemes in the PFI pipeline. The previous Government left a £50 billion post-dated cheque to pay for their hospital building programme. Much of it was unaffordable and poor value for money. We are dealing with that unfortunate legacy, including the 22 NHS trusts that identified this as a constraint on their future sustainability.
Mr Jones
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. PFI schemes have undoubtedly undermined the financial stability of many local health economies, as is the case in Coventry and Warwickshire. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that any solution to assist PFI schemes, such as at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, will not be to the detriment of my constituents who use the George Eliot hospital in Nuneaton?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I believe I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Through the process of working with NHS trusts to see what is necessary for them to become foundation trusts—for example, we are working with University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust—it is clear that action taken locally with support can deliver viability and sustainability for the future. I hope the same will be true for the George Eliot hospital, but as a separate trust it will not be as a direct consequence of the steps that are taken at Walsgrave.
Mr Evennett
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response to the original question. Poorly negotiated PFI deals for hospitals in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust are causing real financial problems and have led to the downgrading of Queen Mary’s hospital in my borough of Bexley. Does he share my concerns about this injustice, and will he ensure that my constituents get the first-class health care that they need and deserve and look again at this PFI situation?
Mr Lansley
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend understands very well indeed how difficult are the circumstances of his trust, which includes two PFI hospitals, and Queen Mary’s at Sidcup has suffered from the consequences of those PFIs. I am looking forward to the proposals on the future provision of health services on the Queen Mary’s Sidcup site. South London Healthcare is clearly an extremely challenged trust and we inherited very substantial problems there. We are looking to resolve them with it, but it will need additional national support.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
In addition to struggling hospital trusts, many, many community hospitals throughout the country, such as Savernake hospital near Marlborough, are also labouring under the burden of an enormous PFI contract and having the indignity of vital local services hollowed out under that lot’s leadership on the Labour Benches. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what he will do to help those smaller hospitals with vital local services?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows from her conversations with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), we are very sympathetic to her concerns. By devolving commissioning responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups, I expect the local clinical leadership, understanding fully the contribution that community hospitals can make, to be supportive of that in their commissioning intentions in her constituency and others.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
14. What plans he has to ensure balanced political and geographical representation on health and wellbeing boards.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Health and Social Care Bill sets minimum membership for health and wellbeing boards. The boards will provide local system leadership, assessing need and setting the strategy for commissioning health, social care and public health. Ensuring that the board has the benefit of a broad range of opinion and geographical spread is a matter for local decision. However, the Department’s health and wellbeing board national learning network is developing and sharing good practice to inform those decisions.
Dr Huppert
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of a health and wellbeing board to represent democratically the interests of the people in its area would be boosted by having a reasonable number of councillors on it with both geographical representation across the area and political balance?
Paul Burstow
We are telling local authorities that they can have a majority of elected members on health and wellbeing boards if that is the appropriate way forward for their local community. My hon. Friend’s area, Cambridgeshire county council, recognises the importance of ensuring that there is a geographical spread and a full involvement of local opinion in those boards. There is a special event next January for stakeholders to get information about that, in which I hope my hon. Friend will take part.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not there a danger that health and wellbeing boards will simply be a talking shop for bureaucrats?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
15. What plans he has to ensure that the NHS is prepared for winter pressures.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The NHS and social care systems are well prepared for winter. Our Winterwatch summary was first published last Thursday. It showed higher flu vaccination uptake, and I announced additional extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO—capacity, which will be in place by December. There is always more pressure on the NHS during winter. This year will be no different, but the preparations are in place.
Guy Opperman
Given the director of immunisation’s recent report on the take-up by medical staff of the flu jab and the local efforts of Dr Alastair Blair, the chair of the Northumberland clinical commissioning group, will the Minister expand on the need for patient protection in the form of flu jabs in hospitals and surgeries around the country?
Mr Lansley
I would like to take this opportunity not least to commend the work that the chief medical officer has done this year in encouraging health care workers to have their seasonal flu jab. The latest figures are that 29% have done so, compared with 11% at the same point last year. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) how well Kettering has done, and there are hospitals that are demonstrating that a higher level is entirely achievable. I urge staff across the NHS to have their flu vaccination. It is the ethical thing to do, not least to provide protection to their patients.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
One of the things that makes the problem of winter pressures much greater is the NHS coping with the biggest reorganisation ever. The public have a right to know the risks that the Government’s policies are placing on our NHS. The Information Commissioner agrees and has judged that the Secretary of State must now release the risk assessments and register for his NHS reorganisation. Will he now obey the law and end his 12-month cover-up?
Mr Lansley
I have been very clear and published all the cost-benefit and risk information relating to the modernisation of the NHS, and the impact assessment was published when the legislation was presented to the House of Lords.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Care Quality Commission and Monitor are looking into the affairs of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that whatever the findings, the Government will act upon them quickly?
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I of course will not prejudice whatever might be said in relation to that, but I will look at the report very carefully when it is presented.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Social care is vital for reducing winter pressures on the NHS by helping to keep older people out of hospital, but the Government are cutting funding for older people’s social care by £1.3 billion. Delayed discharges from hospitals are already up 11% from this time last year. The Minister responsible for care said in Westminster Hall on 10 November:
“cuts to front-line adult social care services are really beginning to bite.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 178WH.]
Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mr Lansley
I have to say to the hon. Lady that it was this Government who, through the spending review, gave priority to social care. More than £7 billion was added to the social care budget as a consequence of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and by the NHS. This year the NHS is providing an additional £648 million specifically to support adult social care. In addition, I have announced our Warm Homes Healthy People funding for this winter, which will provide additional support for those most urgently in need.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
16. How many accident and emergency departments have reduced their on-site service provision in the last 12 months.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
This information is not collected centrally. It is for NHS commissioners to secure high-quality services for their communities. Where a substantial service change is proposed, decisions should be made against the Secretary of State’s four tests, including support from GP commissioners and clear evidence of patient and public engagement.
John Mann
Broadening the definition of major trauma would have disastrous consequences for many A and E departments, not least those in Bassetlaw and the surrounding towns in south Yorkshire and the north midlands. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that the definition of major trauma is not being broadened, so that those hospitals and their A and E departments are not put in jeopardy?
Mr Burns
The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that the siting of A and E departments will be a matter of clinical judgment. I can also assure him that £900,000 will be invested in the A and E department at Bassetlaw hospital for improvements, including the creation of a three-bay resuscitation room, a larger waiting area for patients and other improvements to enhance the quality of care for his constituents.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
At a recent surprise visit to my local A and E department, at the Conquest hospital, I was delighted to find a very high quality of care. Will the Minister reassure me that any local reconfiguration puts high-quality patient care at the centre of delivery?
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that she had such a positive experience visiting her local A and E. I can categorically tell her that reconfigurations must be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of State’s four tests and that clinical safety and quality of care are paramount.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
17. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the future costs of long-term social care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Government are committed to publishing a White Paper and a progress report, responding to both the Law Commission and the Dilnot commission recommendations. As part of ongoing work, there have been numerous discussions throughout the Government, including with Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Julie Hilling
At least 5,000 families a month are having to make decisions about the long-term care of loved ones. Since the election, thousands have had to sell their homes and spend every penny on care. How many more people—and for how much longer—will have to be terrified about their future?
Paul Burstow
If the hon. Lady had prefaced her question with an apology for failing to sort out the problem for 13 years, I might have taken it more seriously. This Government moved urgently to establish the commission chaired by Andrew Dilnot, we are now actively working through his proposals, and we will come forward with legislation and a White Paper in due course.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the integration of health and social care should be leveraged by commissioners to encourage savings in the acute sector, to contribute to funding much-needed improvements in long-term social care?
Paul Burstow
There is no doubt that more integration between health and social care is a way of improving the quality of services delivered to the public, and of releasing resources that can then be reinvested in improving services. We know, for example, that the use of reablement services can reduce costs and improve the quality of life outcomes for the people who receive them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
18. What steps he is taking to improve the training of nurses and doctors.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Our reforms aim for excellence in education and training and for a better patient experience by ensuring greater accountability for employers in planning and developing their work force while being professionally informed and underpinned by strong academic links. I have always been clear that I want to see greater professional ownership of the standards of education and training, and greater employer engagement in getting work force planning right. We will publish more details on that when the NHS Future Forum reports shortly.
Mr Sheerman
Does the Secretary of State share the concerns that I have picked up in my constituency? First, although we have very good nurses in Huddersfield, national stories about a lack of care for elderly people make all of us worried about the quality of training of some nurses in some institutions. Secondly, will he remember that, with his demolition of the health service, we are moving to a system in which no management training is given to any doctor or GP? Is that not a recipe for chaos?
Mr Lansley
On the latter point, I have been talking to those in training, and part of their education increasingly includes leadership. That is what we are looking for—clinical leadership, not to turn clinicians into managers. They will work with managers, but they will provide leadership.
On nursing training, the Care Quality Commission’s recent inspection reports, in particular, illustrated the sheer variability of care—sometimes even between wards in the same hospital. On that basis, we should not in any sense damn the quality of nurse training; we need to focus on the quality of nurse leadership—ward by ward, and hospital by hospital.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The new Government’s strategy on human trafficking requires the NHS to ensure that victims of human trafficking are recognised in hospitals and reported. One way of doing that is to improve training for nurses. I have just returned from Moldova, where nurses have a course on human trafficking as part of their training, so that they can recognise victims and help them. Is that something that we could incorporate here?
Mr Lansley
I am interested to hear my hon. Friend’s experience. I certainly look forward to hearing more from him about it, and to taking it on board in considering how we respond to those obviously tragic victims.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
19. What assessment he has made of the effects of publishing his Department’s strategic risk register on his restructuring of the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Publishing the Department’s risk register would have implications beyond the Department of Health, and we are taking the time granted to us by the Information Commissioner before deciding whether to appeal against his decision requiring its release.
Kerry McCarthy
I think I thank the Minister for that response, which at least gives some indication of where the Government are coming from. But, given the widespread concern among the public about the risks posed by the Health and Social Care Bill, and given that the Information Commission has ruled that the register should be published, does the Minister not think that it should be published before Report stage in the House of Lords, so that at the very least the findings can be used to inform the amendments being tabled to rescue the Bill even at this late stage?
Mr Burns
No, I do not think that the register should be published before then, in so far as we are still considering whether or how to move forward within the time scale that the Information Commissioner has given us—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Lady gets too pious, I must tell her—I do not say “remind her”, because in the previous Government she will have been too busy tweeting, as the tweeting tsar, to know what the Department of Health was doing—that in September 2009 the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) similarly blocked release of the Department of Health’s strategic risk register, using the non-disclosure provisions under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), did the same on two occasions in 2008.
Mr Speaker
Order. It seems that the subject matter for an Adjournment debate is being provided.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Two, or even three, wrongs do not make a right. Regarding an exemplary risk register, does the Minister consider that the mitigation plans for any risks identified there may serve to reassure Members of the other House, if it were to be published in advance of the conclusion of the Committee stage there?
Mr Burns
If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would know that the important aspect—[Interruption.] He says that he cannot read it, but if he listens for a minute, he will hear that the important parts that are relevant to the Health and Social Care Bill were published in January and September this year in the impact assessment for the Bill.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
May I first commend the Health Secretary on his ingenious new approach to cutting delayed discharges? If his appearance on continuous loop on hospital TV does not cut length of stay, I do not know what will. One area where he has been noticeably less forthcoming is on the recent ruling by the Information Commissioner, which could not be clearer: Parliament and the public have the right to know what extra risks and threats his Department expects the NHS to face as a result of this top-down reorganisation. Let us give him one more chance to give us a clear commitment: will he live up to the Prime Minister’s words on transparency and openness and publish the report in full without delay?
Mr Burns
The right hon. Gentleman may not have been listening to the response I gave to his hon. Friend, which was that the relevant aspects of the risk assessment have been incorporated into the impact assessments published in January and September. [Interruption.] Before he, too, gets too pious, may I remind him that it was he himself who, in September 2009, blocked the publication of his Department’s risk assessment?
Andy Burnham
I would happily have paid £5 to opt out of that particular pre-scripted loop message. Unlike the Minister and his fellow Front Benchers, I was not subject to a ruling from the Information Commissioner. People watching this today will be left wondering what he and the Secretary of State are so desperate to hide. He can hide the report, but he cannot hide the growing warning signs we are seeing in our NHS: waiting lists up, delayed discharges up, and nurses made redundant. The truth is that he has placed the NHS in the danger zone, with a destabilising and demoralising reorganisation when it most needed stability. He says he wants feedback, so why does he not listen to patients and staff, put the NHS first and drop his dangerous Bill?
Mr Burns
It is marvellous how the right hon. Gentleman repeats his soundbite every time he discusses the NHS. I have to tell him that he is wrong. He knows that the NHS has to evolve. He knows that we have to improve and enhance patient care. I think he does himself a disservice by simply joining the ranks of organisations such as 38 Degrees, which is frightening people and getting them, almost zombie-like, to send in e-mails.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.
Helen Jones
Is the Secretary of State aware that plans to remove vascular services from Warrington hospital will threaten services such as diabetes care, renal cancer care and the co-operation on stroke that has been built up with Whiston hospital? What will he do to protect those services, or is this part of the plan he discussed in February with NHS North West to reduce the number of acute beds and increase competition?
Mr Lansley
I am glad that on Monday the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for an Adjournment debate where this subject can be—
Mr Lansley
I will of course answer the question. The answer is that this is entirely driven by clinical issues in a local context. I can tell the hon. Lady that it is very much about trying to improve vascular services, and the judgments being made are local and clinical.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
T2. What leadership role do the Government expect the new health and wellbeing boards to play in determining significant NHS service changes in each local area?
Mr Lansley
The health and wellbeing boards will have a role not only in leading improvements in public health and social care but, through the joint strategic needs assessment and the strategy derived from that, in establishing how services should respond to the needs of the local population. The clinical commissioning group should respond directly to that, and any specific service configuration changes should form part of the commissioning plan. In addition, the local authority, through its scrutiny role, will have a continuing ability to refer those plans for review.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T4. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, and families living with muscle disease, to discuss the urgent problem of primary care trusts refusing to fund vital cough assist machines, which help to prevent serious and very costly winter respiratory infections for those who are unable to use their lung muscles to cough?
Mr Lansley
Of course I, or one of my colleagues, will be glad to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that. I might also say that it was important to have announced, as I did last week, the expansion of ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—facilities across England. Those facilities present a life-saving opportunity for people with the severest respiratory disease.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
T3. My apologies, Mr Speaker, for having missed my question on the Order Paper earlier.Every five minutes someone in the UK suffers from a stroke, and over 1 million people are living with the effects of stroke. That is why I welcome the establishment of the first “life after stroke” centre—a £2 million investment in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this excellent initiative by the Stroke Association?
Mr Lansley
Yes, of course I will join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the work that I know personally that the Stroke Association has done over a number of years in raising public awareness of the importance of developing stroke services, which has had an impact inside the NHS. We have improving figures in terms of reducing stroke mortality, and I now want to go further in ensuring that we enable people not only to survive stroke but to recover as many as possible of their abilities afterwards.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T5. Will the Minister with responsibility for public health update the House on her plans to review the criteria whereby people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C can claim stage 2 payments from the Skipton fund? Specifically, will she tell us how she intends to involve patients and carers in that review?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned hard on this issue. I can assure him that I recently met a group of MPs, and constituents of theirs who are suffering from hepatitis. As he knows, there is a wide spectrum of illness associated with chronic hepatitis C infection. We are aware that people could be suffering financial hardship as a result, and I would urge them to apply to the Caxton Foundation. The Department’s expert advisory group on hepatitis C will continue to keep the evidence under review.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
T7. In a number of surgeries in my constituency, and in many across the country, physicians’ assistants play a very important role in enhancing capacity. Can my hon. Friend say whether there are any plans in the Department of Health to allow physicians’ assistants to be able to prescribe medication?
Anne Milton
The medicines legislation governs the range of health professionals who can prescribe. The Government’s policy is that only registered and regulated health professionals should be able to train for that; physicians’ assistants are neither.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T6. After speculation about the future of the Department of Health’s free nursery milk scheme, will the Secretary of State assure families and nurseries that he recognises the value of free nursery milk in preparing young people for a good future and well-being in life?
Anne Milton
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do recognise the value of nursery milk. The only shocking thing is that the previous Government presided over a scheme whereby nursery milk is now costing double the retail price, and we urgently need to look at that. We are committed to continuing the scheme, but shocked at what has gone on before.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T8. An independent study of the patient assumptions of the Safe and Sustainable review has confirmed what many of us already knew: that, contrary to the review’s claims, most families in Yorkshire and the Humber will travel not to Newcastle but to Leicester or Liverpool. Will my right hon. Friend seek confirmation from the Safe and Sustainable review body that it will revise its options in the light of that new evidence?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I have heard the important point that he has made. No doubt the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts will also hear the point that he has made to me. I am sure that he understands that it would be totally inappropriate for me to give any view that might compromise the independence of Ministers on this independent review.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the Secretary of State’s estimation of the number of NHS doctors and nurses who, in an astoundingly demoralising way, are having their pay grades downgraded?
Mr Lansley
I do not have a figure for that. If the hon. Lady and others want to discuss it, I would be glad to see evidence of it—and so should NHS employers, because as part of the implementation of “Agenda for Change”, staff should be banded in grades according to independent criteria.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T9. Last year in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) rightly praised the work of midwives and the Royal College of Midwives. Does she share my concern that locally, there could be a downgrading of community midwives, leading to an overall reduction in the number of midwives in our area?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend, and I will take this opportunity to praise again the work of midwives and the Royal College of Midwives. It was a pleasure to be at its conference only last week. I would point out that there are now more than 20,000 full-time equivalent midwives. That is an increase of 2.4% on last year. We have record numbers of midwives in training, with 2,493 this year and an increase on that next year. What matters is that we get the right services for women who are pregnant, ensure that they can exercise the choices that they need, and get the right skills mix.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Figures today reveal that older women are being discriminated against in breast cancer treatment, with some 20% of women over 65 receiving chemotherapy compared with some 70% of women under 50. Will the Minister assure the House that those who are over 65 will receive equitable treatment, and that this discrimination will stop?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful for that question, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to root out ageism wherever it might be within the NHS. That is why we have made it clear that there will be no exemptions from age discrimination legislation—and that will have to be taken into account by clinicians when they make decisions.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The recent judicial review concerning the unit at the Royal Brompton hospital said that the Safe and Sustainable consultation was unlawful and the review should be quashed. Considering the concern about this matter and the flaws in the review, is it not time for the Minister to indicate when the Government might intervene? Otherwise, there could be further threats of judicial review.
Mr Simon Burns
The straightforward answer is no, because the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has said that it intends to appeal. This is an independent review. It would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to interfere in such a review, because we could be accused of compromising its independence.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister promised a bare-knuckle fight to save A and E and maternity units at King George hospital, Chase Farm hospital and other hospitals that the Secretary of State now plans to close. When will that fight take place, and where can hon. Members purchase tickets for ringside seats?
Mr Burns
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I was disappointed that we did not reach his question on the Order Paper earlier, because he has been extremely concerned about the A and E in his own area in Hartlepool. That decision was taken on safety grounds. Emergency care has been provided at the One Life centre. The decision was taken with the support of the local overview and scrutiny committee, which he will appreciate has democratic accountability. That was the right decision. Where there are clinical reasons for taking such decisions, they should be taken.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any of his ministerial colleagues been able to visit the People’s Republic of China to consider traditional Chinese medicine?
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He must be psychic, because I recently visited China, and it was fascinating to meet Ministers there. He will also be very pleased to hear, as I am sure the whole House will, that I visited a hospital and community centre that combines western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
The coalition agreement states that public sector employees, including health care employees, will be given a new right to set up employee-led co-operatives to run services. Can the Minister detail how many NHS co-operatives have been established and how many employees are involved in them?
Mr Lansley
I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman if my recollection is wrong, but I think that something in the order of 25,000 staff have been transferred into social enterprises since the election. That represents something like £900 million-worth of NHS activity across England.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Pension reform is important to those of my constituents who work in the public sector—and, indeed, to the taxpayers who do not. With that in mind, does the Secretary of State agree that the heath service unions should work constructively with the Government on public sector pension reform rather than go on strike next week, potentially putting patients’ lives at risk?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very important to me that NHS staff, and other public servants, are valued in their remuneration, including the pensions that they receive. That is precisely why I have myself engaged in discussion with the NHS trade unions and staff side and continue to be engaged directly in negotiations with them about that, on the basis of the conditional offer that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced to the House recently, which I think would be fair to NHS staff and to taxpayers. On that basis, I think it is completely irresponsible and unacceptable for some unions in the NHS—not the Royal College of Nursing or the British Medical Association—to intend to go on strike next week.
Mr Speaker
We are immensely grateful to the Secretary of State. He is testing the knee muscles of colleagues very considerably, and we are grateful to him for that, I am sure.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Today’s report by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that over the past 40 years there has been virtually no improvement in life expectancy for those diagnosed with a brain tumour. Brain Tumour UK and experts such as my city’s own Professor David Walker are calling for action to improve diagnosis and treatment. What action is the Department taking to address their concerns?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Macmillan has done a very good job by highlighting the need to focus on survival rates with regard not only to brain cancers but to lung cancers. Through our outcomes strategy, we are focusing on earlier diagnosis and ensuring that the care pathway is faster and delivers the appropriate treatments at the right time.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
There are 3,000 cases each year of early stage inoperable lung cancer, but as yet no national stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer. What number of patients does the Secretary of State consider to be the appropriate threshold at which he will instruct his Department to establish a national lung cancer tariff?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I do not think I am in a position to say what figure is appropriate, but the national clinical director for cancer has already indicated to the NHS that he wishes us to develop a national tariff for stereotactic radiotherapy. A quarter of centres across the country already provide it, and our intention is to ensure that that is supported by a national tariff as soon as possible.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Regrettably, there are still many thousands of attacks by dangerous dogs every year that end up with people in A and E, and occasional fatalities. Has the Secretary of State carried out any assessment of the cost to the NHS of treatment for attacks by dangerous dogs? If not, may I ask him to instruct his officials to do so?
Mr Lansley
I do not have those figures to hand, but I will gladly see whether we have them available, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for disappointing colleagues, but Health questions are invariably box office, and usually a sell-out at that. We must now move on.
Petition
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to present—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps, Mr Love, you could resume your seat so that we can wait until Members have left the Chamber quietly.
Mr Love
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to present this petition on the new boundaries for the Edmonton constituency. My constituents are outraged that the boundary commissioners have ganged up on Edmonton, proposing changes that try to cross the natural barrier of the River Lea, which is over 1 mile wide in parts and separates the two distinct parts of the new constituency. There are no direct transport links across the new constituency, and this undermines existing community ties. My constituents are petitioning the House to make time for a debate on the proposed changes to the boundaries of the constituency of Edmonton.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Edmonton and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the constituency of Edmonton, as the Petitioners believe that the proposed changes will undermine existing community ties and declares that the Petitioners believe that the integrity of Edmonton should be maintained through links with other adjacent communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make time for a debate on the proposed changes by the Boundary Commission for England to the constituency of Edmonton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000984]
Coastguard Modernisation
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s final decisions about coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the second round of consultation, which ended on 6 October 2011.
I should first like to remind the House that the plans for coastguard modernisation announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in his statement on 14 July, following the first round of consultation, are not about altering the arrangements for front-line rescue services around our coasts. Rescue activities will continue to be carried out as they are today by the 3,500 community volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service; the lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; independent lifeboats operated by volunteer groups; and our search and rescue helicopters. The bravery and commitment shown by those providing front-line services have served this country well and will continue to do so.
The plans we have announced specifically include an increase in the number of regular coastguard officers who provide operational leadership to support the 3,500 volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service, whom I mentioned. These plans therefore reflect the importance we attach to continuing the delivery of a first-class local rescue service directly serving citizens and recreational mariners.
The decision announced on 14 July, and the further details I am announcing today, are about modernising the coastguard co-ordination function only. Modernisation is needed to address the limited resilience of current rescue co-ordination arrangements, which have changed little since the removal of the visual watch in the 1970s. Modernisation will provide the operational resilience needed; distribute work more effectively and efficiently around coastguard centres; make the most of the professional skills of our regular coastguards with levels of reward that match their responsibilities; and deliver improved support and co-ordination for our Coastguard Rescue Service and our search and rescue partners.
The original proposals, which we consulted on last December, had been discussed and developed over several years by the previous Government. We said at the outset that we would have a genuine consultation and that we expected the outcome of the process to be improved and more resilient plans.
We made it clear in July that we had listened to the views expressed in the first consultation. As a result, we announced that, in implementing a nationally networked system, we would retain more coastguard centres than originally proposed; keep all these centres operating 24/7; and retain more regular coastguard jobs. These plans will keep open at least one of each of the paired coastguard centres. Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical areas. Keeping at least one centre from each pair will therefore ensure that that experience and local knowledge is retained. In addition, as we explained in July, the operational costs of retaining the 10 centres overall plus a small centre in London will be offset by operating only one national maritime operations centre—MOC—with an unmanned back-up in Dover, rather than the two that were previously planned.
The second consultation exercise, which is what this statement is about, invited views on four specific issues: the retention of both the centres at Stornoway and Shetland and their operation on a 24/7 basis; the change to a single maritime operations centre with an unmanned back-up in Dover; the retention of Holyhead rather than its paired centre at Liverpool; and the retention of Milford Haven rather than its paired centre at Swansea.
The second consultation closed on 6 October. I should like again to thank all those who engaged in the process, including those in the service, members of the public and Members from both sides of the House. All responses were read and examined by an independent team, which has helped to develop the modernisation proposals. I am making its report on the issues identified in the consultation available today on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website, and it will be available in the Library of the House.
Let me now turn to the specific questions we posed in the second consultation. The support for keeping open both the centres at Stornoway and on Shetland was overwhelming, so I can confirm that we will keep them both open on a 24/7 basis.
On the move to a single maritime centre, concerns were expressed about having both an unmanned centre and its back-up in the south, when they should be geographically separated, and about the possible reduction in capabilities at Aberdeen to co-ordinate oil or gas incidents if there was not to be a second main centre in Aberdeen. However, we continue to believe that with more centres remaining open on a 24/7 basis, there is sufficient cover not to need a second nationally networked system. Consequently, there will be one network in the south.
We also believe that the back-up at Dover is sufficiently distant from the maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area—I shall return to that later—to provide the necessary resilience while minimising costs. However, we will retain additional specialist staff in Aberdeen to maintain the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s close links with the oil and gas sector. Those jobs will remain.
On the choice of Holyhead rather than Liverpool, representations were received stressing the scale and proximity of maritime and tourist activities at both locations; questioning the importance of the Welsh language considerations highlighted in the first consultation; and concerning the running-cost advantages and higher disposal costs for Liverpool. We considered the responses carefully, but as we made clear in July, we have identified no operational or financial reasons for preferring one location to the other. In particular there are no significant differences in running costs.
In the light of comments in the first consultation, it is also our view that familiarity with Welsh place names, rather than speaking Welsh, must be an important consideration supporting the retention of Holyhead. As a result, I have concluded that Holyhead should form part of the nationally networked system and that the co-ordination function at Liverpool will close. We plan to maintain a marine office, coastguard rescue team, coastal operational hub and a radio mast at the Liverpool site.
Representations were also received about the proximity, particularly of maritime activities, at Milford Haven and Swansea. The representations concerned the perceived risks of having a centre so close to liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven; better transport links in Swansea; and the wider potential recruitment pool in the Swansea area. I must reiterate, however, that within the nationally networked system, which will co-ordinate incidents in this area, there are no operational reasons for choosing one or other of these sites. Similarly, as was explained in July, we are satisfied that there are no considerations that favour either location.
In addition, we have not recently experienced any recruitment problems at Milford Haven. As a result, I have concluded that it remains right that the choice of Milford Haven as the site for a continuing coastguard co-ordination centre should reflect the Department for Transport’s continuing substantial levels of employment in Swansea. This means that we will no longer have a coastguard co-ordination function at Swansea, but we plan that the building will remain in use as a coastal operations hub for the volunteer rescue teams. It will be at that site.
Having reached these decisions, I am today publishing a short summary document that sets out a clear blueprint for the operation of the nationally networked coastguard co-ordination service comprising a single national operations centre in the Portsmouth area—again, I shall return to that—a back-up national operations centre at Dover; and centres at the MCA sites at Humber, Aberdeen, Shetland, Stornoway, Belfast, Holyhead, Milford Haven and Falmouth. This blueprint also sets out the previously announced provisional timetable for the closure of the other existing co-ordination centres before 31 March 2015. The centre at Solent will be replaced by the new maritime operations centre. This timetable remains our best estimate of when these centres will close, although clearly it will need to be kept under review to match operational requirements.
The document also explains—and I stress this point—the strong commitment to the coastguard presence that will be retained at the existing MCA sites at Liverpool, Swansea and the Thames, even after the co-ordination centre function ends. There will be a similarly strong presence in the Clyde area, but not at the existing site.
Finally, I would like to say something about the location of the new national maritime operations centre. With the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I am pleased to inform the House that the maritime operations centre will be housed in the vacant fire control centre building in Fareham—the significance of that with a former fireman standing here will be obvious. The building’s existing facilities mean that the maritime operations centre can be established quickly, allowing for an extensive programme of tests and trials to prove and refine the new concept of operations for maritime rescue co-ordination. Those tests and trials will be an important element in addressing the understandable concerns from many professional coastguards about the operation of the new system and will ensure no reduction in capabilities in the transition period. The choice of Fareham also makes best use of the Government’s existing estate and minimises up-front costs, offering best value for money.
I understand, of course, that the closure of some existing co-ordination centres and the loss of some coastguard jobs will come as a disappointment to those directly affected. However, the decisions that I have announced today will deliver the modernised, nationally networked and fully resilient coastguard service that we require for the future, while also reducing costs. Critically, these decisions will enable us better to support our coastguard volunteers and the front-line rescue capabilities on which the public and mariners depend. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would expect no less a courtesy from a former fellow fireman, but it is especially generous coming from someone who served with the Essex brigade to someone from London. I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, is not present. She has pursued the issue vigorously, as have the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Leader of the House. She is particularly frustrated at being unable to be here today, especially as her own station is to close.
I also thank the Minister for making today’s statement, ending the prolonged concern and uncertainty in coastguard communities. These exercises take time, and I know that the Minister made a considerable personal effort in travelling to various parts of the country to meet and engage with staff and others. That is to his credit. He will also have listened to the respected chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the highly regarded chief coastguard, Rod Johnson. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to express our support for them and the entire coastguard service, which so professionally co-ordinates the first-class search and rescue capability around our coast.
As a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, as former shipping Minister and now as shadow shipping Minister, I, like the Minister, am proud to wear the red ensign badge, in solidarity with and respect for British shipping in all its aspects. I have no doubt that the Minister has done his best within the limits set by the Treasury and his departmental budget; but equally, I have no doubt that these proposals are at least partly driven by financial constraints. He knows the concerns out there about shipping safety owing to the loss of Nimrods, the ending of the emergency towing vessel contract and the outstanding review of the air-sea search and rescue service. The Select Committee on Transport, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), echoed that concern when it said:
“The evidence…raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed.”
In that case the Government were right to look again and amend their original proposals.
I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a few questions. In the original plan he envisaged two operational centres, we assumed for resilience. Can he reassure the House that the non-staffed back-up will be able to do the job if the main centre crashes? Can he also say how quickly it would be up and running under such circumstances? Can he tell us how many coastguards will remain in full-time employment after this modernisation programme? I think he said that there would be more, but I assume that that is against the original consultation document, not the present establishment. Part of our review in government was about addressing low pay among coastguards historically, compared with similar staff, with similar duties, in the other emergency services. Given that remaining staff will be undertaking more work with more responsibilities and that we anticipate they will need to be upskilled, will this modernisation address that historic anomaly? My last question is when we can expect a statement on the future of the air-sea search and rescue service.
In conclusion, we welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the need to keep both Shetland and Stornoway, and we are relieved that the Department proposes 24/7 cover at all the remaining stations. His decision to retain one of each pair of twinned stations is an acknowledgement that the question of local knowledge weighed heavily on him and his officials. I am sure he will understand, however, that in a number of communities out there now, there will be real disappointment and even anger today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Mike Penning
I thank my friend for his comments: we agree on most things, but occasionally disagree; perhaps we will disagree a little bit today. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s four specific questions.
In the original proposal, which we inherited from the previous Administration, two MOCs were required, not least because the majority of the stations would have gone part time. They are no longer going part time; they are 24/7, so the resilience within the system, which is not there today, will give us the communications resilience that we need. If we need to move into the unmanned MOC we will do so. We looked at this carefully and found that in 99.9% of cases we would not have to do this, even if the MOC went down initially, because the other stations will pick it up, and we are moving towards the Dover MOC.
Pay is a real issue: £13,500 as a basic salary for someone working in the emergency services is a disgrace. I know that the shadow Minister looked at this carefully when he was in my position, which is why the original proposals were on his former desk and on the desk of the Minister before him and the one before that. We have done something about it so that we have pay, conditions and promotion opportunities for the people who serve so well.
In the original proposals I inherited, coastguard staffing levels would have gone down to 244. Under the proposals I have announced today, the staffing level will be 314. The shadow Minister will have to wait for the Secretary of State to make her announcement on search and rescue helicopters.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Prime Minister told this House on 30 March:
“We want to make changes only if they improve coastguard support that people in fishing communities and elsewhere get…If that is not the case, we will obviously have to reconsider reforms”.—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 336.]
If, as many sea users at all levels from rear admirals to professional yachtsmen believe, the trial of a new control centre demonstrates the loss of local knowledge to be an added danger to any sea user, will the Minister reconsider his plans for closing any coastguard co-ordination centres, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned?
Mike Penning
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. One point in having Fareham open so early is that we will be able to trial the new system early, which will mean that no centres will close before the robustness of the system is demonstrated. Should there be any blips in the system, I can assure my hon. Friend that no station will close until we have the level of resilience that we do not have today.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister’s proposals mean a cut in staffing levels covering the Clyde area of 56% in comparison with a UK average cut of 33%. I see nothing in the statement that changes that. Why does the Minister think that the Clyde, which is the busiest area for call-out, should have a disproportionately higher cut in staffing?
Mike Penning
I am sorry if I misled the hon. Lady, but Clyde will close as a co-ordination centre. It is already paired with Belfast. Belfast regularly covers the resilience and has the local knowledge that is necessary. That is why we took the decision to keep one of every pair open. I understand that it is sad for the hon. Lady, but there will be coastguards working in the Clyde area, although it will not be a co-ordination centre.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
Whilst welcoming the sensible concessions made, not least with regard to the west coast, the Minches and the northern waters—I have to say that the earlier suggestions flew in the face of all common sense—I ask the Minister whether he will none the less accept that there is a considerable element of gamble here. Given the warnings from the seafarers and the emergency services, who have done this job successfully for generations, about what might occur, will the Minister at least confirm from the Dispatch Box today that if circumstances merit it, he would be willing to reopen this entire recasting and go back to the drawing board?
Mike Penning
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but we took this action because the original proposals were flawed. They were not my proposals; they were the last Government’s proposals.
The point of introducing the resilience that does not currently exist is to end the scaremongering about safety. Safety standards are not good today, but they will be good from now on because of that resilience. In most of the coastguard stations that I visited around the country, including stations in Scotland, I was told, “We know that we have to cut the number of stations to nine or 10.”
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I recognise that significant changes have been made since the Government’s original proposals, but what work has been done to ensure that, notwithstanding the scale of the closures, local knowledge will be retained so that lives can be safeguarded?
Mike Penning
I fully respect the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, whose report helped me to decide how to proceed. The point of keeping one centre in a pair which regularly covers the topography of the other centre’s area is to retain the local knowledge about which so many of those who were consulted expressed concern. I know that there will be disappointment in some parts of the country, but the resilience to which I have referred is more important. We need a 21st-century coastguard.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My constituents will be very disappointed that the new maritime operations centre will not be based at the Daedalus site. Can the Minister assure us that the hugely experienced coastguards who will lose their jobs at Lee-on-Solent will be helped to find work at the new Fareham site?
Mike Penning
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. When possible we need to retain the experience that we have at the co-ordination centres, particularly the one at the Solent, and we have no intention of making compulsory redundancies there. There will be more job offers at the new MOC, and I hope that as many people as possible transfer to it.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for letting me see his statement in advance, and for the communication in which he has engaged with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
We now know that two out of five Scottish coastguard stations will close, and that we have only an interim contract on the emergency tugs. The Government have announced the scrapping of the entire fleet of fixed-wing long-range search and rescue aircraft, and the future of the air rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss is still uncertain. Is this not the time to devolve those powers to the Scottish Parliament so that they can be taken seriously?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and pay tribute to the great personal effort that I know he has put into visiting every affected coastguard station to ensure that consultation was both open-ended and reasoned. Can he none the less reassure me that when one of a pair of co-ordination centres closes, there will be a structure in place to ensure that local knowledge is transferred between staff and we do not see a sudden cliff-edge changeover?
Mike Penning
The closures are planned for March 2015, so there will be no cliff edge. I repeat that, having studied the results of the consultation extremely carefully, we decided to adopt the pair-based system because the current local knowledge of the topography would be retained. When I visited Swansea—and I expect that a Swansea Member will ask a question shortly—the station was closed while I was meeting the staff, and Milford Haven took over the local knowledge. That sort of thing is happening regularly, and it will introduce more resilience to the system.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the unique position of the Aberdeen station and its links with the oil and gas industry. However, although he has accepted that there needs to be a back-up MOC—which was not included in the plans announced last September—I understand that it is to be a part-time empty station in Dover. The Aberdeen station, which was included in the original December proposals, is fully manned, and could act immediately with a full staff complement in an emergency. What assurances can the Minister give about the security of the system in such circumstances?
Mike Penning
The Aberdeen station is not fully manned as a MOC today. It is a co-ordination centre. Under the previous proposals, if we had taken out the second MOC there would have been 23 staff in Scotland, whereas 69 will be working for me at the co-ordination centres in Scotland. We considered carefully whether we would need a second MOC if we kept the twin stations open 24/7, and decided that, with the twin stations open and a nationally resilient communications system, we did not need a full-time second MOC.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I thank my hon. Friend for this difficult statement and for the sensitive way in which he has approached these very difficult decisions? Can he confirm that he is, in effect, announcing the closure of the coastguard centre at Walton-on-the-Naze today? Will he understand how much of a disappointment that is to local people, and to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who have made representations to him on this matter? How can we ensure that the local knowledge of the locally employed people there is somehow included in the new arrangements, not least in respect of their job opportunities, even if they wish to continue to live locally?
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend knows that I have listened very carefully to the consultation, and to delegations from across the House and across the country. Yes, his local station will close, but the station that covers it on a regular basis will stay open, the local knowledge will still be there and, wherever possible, those staff will be transferred to the new stations.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I warmly welcome the confirmation in today’s statement that Northern Ireland’s only coastguard centre will be remaining open in Bangor in my constituency. I am very pleased to put on the record the fact that the Minister listened very carefully to all the political voices raised right across the board in Northern Ireland in support of retaining that coastguard centre. Before he agrees to come back to Bangor at my invitation—we would love to have him back, with the good news—will he kindly confirm that he has sought and obtained reassurances from the Irish Government about the continued availability of Irish helicopters, deployed from Sligo and paid for by the Irish Government, to assist the Northern Ireland coastguard so ably, as they have done in the past?
Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. It appears that I was, with my proposals, the only politician in many years to manage to unite all the political parties in Northern Ireland. To be fair, I looked very carefully at where the centre should be; Belfast covered the Clyde, the Clyde covered Belfast and the decision to keep the centre in Belfast was taken for resilience purposes. I have now met two Transport Secretaries from the Republic of Ireland and I understand that they have no plans to remove the excellent service they give us. We will share that service as our new search and rescue helicopter is introduced too.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend understand the degree of disappointment that there will be in my constituency that the opportunity of the second consultation has not been taken to provide a reprieve for the station at Fife Ness? Furthermore, is he aware that fishermen, yachtsmen and all the seafarers who use the firth of Forth believe that his decision is profoundly mistaken?
Mike Penning
I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend if I have not been able to make the announcement that he wanted me to make today, but this consultation was not about Fife—that matter was dealt with in the first consultation and it was finished when the previous Secretary of State made his statements to this House. Although there are concerns, our current system has a national emergency service without any national resilience. That cannot be acceptable and I was not willing to sit, as the Minister, and let that carry on.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us exactly how much money he will be saving by closing Swansea coastguard station, given that there will be a continued presence at that building? How does that compare with the money he would have saved had he chosen to close the centre at Milford Haven instead?
Mike Penning
As I said in my statement, there is almost no difference in the cost savings—the cost is in staff. May I say to the hon. Lady that under the proposals that I inherited only one out of the three centres in Wales would have stayed open and there would have been 10 staff in Wales, whereas there are 46 with my announcement today?
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I know that the Minister will appreciate, because we have sent many submissions to him that Portland coastguard should remain open, how devastated my constituents are that this decision has been made. Will he reassure me and my constituents that if the trial at Fareham does not meet expectations, reopening the Portland centre will be at the top of the agenda?
Mike Penning
I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the importance to his constituents of Portland. However, I am sure that he would join me in saying that the front-line emergency personnel—the volunteers—are the most important people here and their resilience and ability to do their job is the most important thing. We will be able to enhance their training and enhance the pay in our coastguard co-ordination centres. Not in a million years could I have been able to afford to build the facility in Fareham. It was folly of the previous Government to do so and I will utilise that building to its best abilities.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I remind the Minister that the two issues that will anger people about the decision on Crosby are those to do with local knowledge of the north-west coast of England and the west of Scotland, which will now be lost, and those to do with the proposal put forward by the staff to host the maritime operations centre at a significant saving. He said in answer to an earlier question that he was not looking at new plans in the second consultation, but would it not have been a good idea for the Government to have done so and to have considered the good ideas coming forward from staff, such as those proposed at Crosby?
Mike Penning
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, the consultation was quite specific about whether we should have one MOC or two MOCs. The second proposal was for a MOC in Aberdeen and I needed to say that we were not going to do that if we were to have the money to keep the other stations open and that we would have the resilience without it. Even though the facilities at Swansea are good, they are nothing compared with the fire control centre I have taken over in Fareham, and I invite any hon. Members to visit that facility. The communications and build quality are second-to-none. As I have said, I could never have afforded to build it so the deal that I have done with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is absolutely brilliant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when I was at Crosby—on my very first visit—the full-time coastguards told me that having the existing 18 centres was wrong and they suggested there should be nine. I am sorry that Crosby is not one of them.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on producing a well-balanced package under difficult circumstances? In particular, I welcome the promises on reward for our underpaid coastguards. I join him, too, in welcoming the huge contribution made by volunteers, including Whitstable RNLI. When he makes proposals on search and rescue helicopters, will he look closely at the hybrid arrangements in north America, through which the armed forces reserves offer a very cost-effective approach?
Mike Penning
Some of what my hon. Friend has just asked for is above my pay grade and even comes under a completely different Department. The Secretary of State is sitting next to me and I am sure that she has heard the message loud and clear.
May I also reiterate—I hope I mentioned it in my statement—my complete admiration for the volunteers, whether they are in the volunteer lifeboats of the RNLI or the 3,500 plus volunteers who go out on a regular basis and put their lives at risk for us?
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that, as the Member for Inverclyde, where the Clyde coastguard is situated, I am deeply disappointed with today’s announcement, which comes on the back of 800 new engagements in the consultation process, tens of thousands of signatures sent to the Prime Minister in support of retaining the Clyde coastguard and numerous letters from organisations to the Minister. How does the Minister intend to assure people on the west coast of Scotland that safety is paramount and that the loss of the Clyde coastguard station will not mean that the area off the coast of the west of Scotland will be a no-shipping zone?
Mike Penning
I know that it is difficult, but hon. Members should be careful about the emotive language that they use. When the Clyde co-ordination centre is not operational for whatever reason, its pair does the job on a regular basis. That happens and it happens around the country. That was why we went to this system and that was part of the submission. If the hon. Gentleman is disappointed by what I have said today, I must say to him that the previous Government’s proposals, which were on my desk when I arrived, were 10 times worse.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
There will be great disappointment across south Devon at the announcement of the closure of the Brixham control centre. I know that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), if she were able to be in the Chamber today, would share my concern. Can the Minister guarantee that there will continue to be a coastguard presence, if not the control centre, in the Torbay area? Will he consider the possibility of bringing other coastguard activities, such as the training of control centre and rescue staff and even volunteers, into the Torbay area to build on the reputation that the coastguard service has built up over decades?
Mike Penning
There is acceptance that the quality of Her Majesty’s coastguard is world-renowned. I was at the International Maritime Organisation’s assembly yesterday morning and the leader of the American coastguard was talking to me about that particular point. The proposals we have finished with today will allow us to have more money for full-time staff to train the volunteers, more equipment and a professional career and pay structure that we would all be happy with, rather than the structure we have today.
Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)
Surely, the most perverse aspect of today’s statement is the proposed closure of Swansea. What justification do the Government give for this? They want to expand the DFT’s economic footprint in west Wales. What is the impact of that? Perhaps the Minister could explain why a so-called employment measure will take jobs away from an area of higher unemployment to protect them in an area of lower unemployment. And how on earth can he justify leaving the Bristol channel, which is one of the most dangerous waters around our country, without a 24-hour coastguard station?
Mike Penning
On the first of the two substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raises, the Department and the Secretary of State are responsible for in excess of 5,000 DFT staff in the Swansea area. The economic effect on the small number of staff at Milford Haven is disproportionately beneficial to them compared with what would be the case at Swansea. That is what we have said both in the statement and all the way through. On the second point, when I was at Swansea attending a meeting with the staff, the station was switched off and Milford Haven was covering the very dangerous areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If that had not been safe, I am sure the coastguard would not have turned the station off.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the reassurance that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) that the safety of people on our seas will be paramount in all his considerations as the proposals are developed. Will he give me further reassurance that the front-line coastguards at the co-ordination centres that will remain will be given the opportunity to work alongside the coastguards developing the new processes and procedures in the MOCs so that we will truly have the resilient and first-class service that I know he aspires to achieve?
Mike Penning
A shocking thing that I found when I took over this job and visited co-ordination centres around the country was the complete lack of co-ordination. The pairs were linked but apart from that there was no national resilience at all. The whole point of doing this is to give us a 21st-century emergency service with that level of communication and skills. Training will be paramount. That will be done not only in the MOCs but across the co-ordination centres because they will be picking up calls from other areas just as the MOCs will be.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify the position of the Clyde station given that the lease of the premises is coming to an end at the end of next year? Is that when it will close? This is of great concern given that the maritime operations centre will not be in place then, so there will be no national resilience, and that Belfast is a far smaller station than the Clyde station at the moment. Does he understand the massive concern that we are leading to a situation in which there will be very little cover on the Clyde and far fewer resources than now?
Mike Penning
It will not be the case that there will be little cover on the Clyde because that station is paired and the pairing will cover it no matter what. That happens today and has been the case for many years. There is no drawback at all to the front-line emergency services carrying out the rescues. Indeed, the exact opposite is the case—I am enhancing them, I am going to have more paid staff training them and there will be more safety and more cover. I am very aware that the lease on the station is running out, which is why I said in my statement that we will keep a strong footprint in the Clyde area—but it will not be at the existing station.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am pleased that the Minister anticipates the operations centre at Fareham coming on line quickly. Will he give some indication of when he anticipates that happening and how long the transitional period might be?
Mike Penning
We already have the keys to the operations centre in Fareham and we have been showing staff around. I have not formally signed a contract yet, but I hope to do so in the next few weeks.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
May I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) complimenting the Minister on his accessibility during this exercise? Will he assure us that the reduced number of MOCs, with their extended geographic catchments, will give the same quality and level of support as they previously have to our voluntary search and rescue services, which provide such a strong service on our inland waterways?
Mike Penning
I am very aware of the unique geographical situation and size of Northern Ireland’s inland waterways. That is one of the reasons why I gave careful consideration to the question of whether it should be Belfast or Liverpool, and why we kept Belfast. The other reason was the unique situation of a border with another EU member state. Also, Belfast has shown time and again its ability to cover for the Clyde so that the pairing system works.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend the Minister for the comprehensive and sympathetic way in which he has gone about his further consultation. I acknowledge that one of the paired stations will remain open on a 24/7 basis, but I am concerned that on the east coast it is not the one at Yarmouth, but the one on Humberside. My concern focuses on the broads and the myriad internal waterways. Concern has been expressed to me by the Broads Authority and the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association that local knowledge cannot be provided from the Humberside. Will my hon. Friend consider a station operated on a seasonal basis, much the same as for the Thames, to deal with that area?
Mike Penning
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. If I went down that avenue, I would open up a Pandora’s box and my Secretary of State would shoot me. I have holidayed nearly every year for the past 30 years on the Norfolk broads, especially across Breydon water. I understand the concerns, but I think the cover will be resilient enough. I hope people from Yarmouth transfer to the Humber. The new career and pay structures will make it much more worth while than was ever the case in the past, but I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Mr Speaker
We are always interested to hear of the Minister’s holiday arrangements, as well as his fear of the death penalty.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Minister assured the House that there would be some Liverpool-based facility. Will he clarify whether there will be any people in that facility who will be able to rescue anyone?
Mike Penning
The rescue facilities in the Liverpool area will be enhanced. We will utilise the buildings that we have so that we do not rent new buildings for the sake of it. We will have more trainers, more enhanced staff, and the volunteers will provide a much better service for the public to rely on.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Although my Milton Keynes South constituency is probably as far from any part of the UK coastline as it is possible to be, I take a close interest in these matters as a member of the Transport Committee. I congratulate the Minister on balancing so many competing priorities and representations so objectively and fairly, but can he confirm to me that he is still reversing a key flaw in the original proposals, which was for only daylight operations at some stations?
Mike Penning
That is one of the key aspects that we examined to see where resilience would come from. As we looked at the possibility of not having a second full-time MOC, the only way to provide resilience was for all the remaining stations to be open 24/7. That is why they will all be operational 24 hours, not just with daylight manning.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), and given the diversity of risks in Liverpool bay, ranging from the myriad estuaries to complex offshore facilities, is the Minister satisfied that the co-ordination facilities in the Liverpool bay area will be adequate? I share his view about national resilience. Will he look very carefully to make sure that what he is delivering meets what he says?
Mike Penning
As an ex-firefighter, I would never in a million years propose something that I did not feel would have the resilience, the technology, the skills and the local topography to allow it to take place. The volunteers in the Liverpool area, particular in the area that I visited, have unbelievable skills, which will be enhanced, not hindered.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Although there will be huge disappointment in Great Yarmouth at the loss of our coastguard station, we note the Minister’s earlier comments about the job opportunities, the local knowledge and the resilience that could be improved with the Humber pair being kept. We are grateful for his recent visit to Great Yarmouth to visit the Caister independent lifeboat. Will he confirm that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will continue to work as closely with independent lifeboats such as those at Caister and Hemsby as it does with the excellent Royal National Lifeboat Institution?
Mike Penning
One of the great things about having the RNLI is that it is a brand known worldwide and a fantastic facility. However, little is known in this country about the volunteer lifeboats. There are huge numbers, including the one that I visited and went out to sea on at Caister recently, where the crew desperately tried to make me seasick, unsuccessfully. I can assure the House that not only will the facility be as good as it is now, but it will be better.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will recognise the bitter disappointment of those in my locality who campaigned so hard to retain both the Liverpool and Clyde facilities, which serve 200 miles of coastline. The Scottish Government Transport Minister failed to recognise the significance of Liverpool to the Solway coast, but did the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State make any representations to him about retaining the Clyde facility?
Mike Penning
The Scotland Office was fully informed of the proposal. I phoned the Minister yesterday to tell him, and I did the same for the Wales Office. This is a national emergency service, so the House and the Government are fully responsible for it. I understand the concerns, but we must reiterate that at the moment we do not have a national resilience service. If two of these pairs go down, there is no way that we can provide the cover necessary in a 21st-century service. This should have been done years ago, as I know the hon. Gentleman will admit.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Each year, the coastal waters have more and more incidents. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the surveillance and subsequent safety of our coastal waters will be maintained under the new proposals?
Mike Penning
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that these days in a co-ordination centre binoculars are not the usual piece of equipment used to survey what is going on at sea. The electronic equipment that we use is highly technical and works very well. In times of high need, we will be able to move that around the network so that other less important jobs that are already flowing through can be taken on by other stations or the MOC while new emergencies that are coming on board, with the local knowledge that is so desperately needed, can be facilitated.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
May I join the Minister and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the search and rescue family, including volunteers of coastguard services, for the excellent work that they do in protecting our coastline and coastal waters? May I also thank the Minister for reiterating the strategic importance of Holyhead and invite him to visit it, because he did not have a chance to do so during the consultation period? Will he assure the House that there will be constructive dialogue between management and the work force, including the unions, on this modernisation programme, so that they are fully involved and their ideas and local skills are used to make up this resilience that he talks about? Will he also assure the House that people will be told of redundancy and of any displacement that there will throughout the United Kingdom in plenty of time?
Mike Penning
I have been working with the Public and Commercial Services union since day one when I became the Minister. I met its representatives very early on. They have been desperate for this issue to be resolved once and for all. They know the service needs to be modernised and that there had to be closures. They knew that all the way through, and I have discussed that with them fully. They were part of the group that looked at the proposals and the consultation documents that came in. We will work closely with the unions and the non-unionised members of staff, so that we ensure that whatever happens they know. I do not think that there will be any redundancies in Holyhead, but, overall, we will do our level best to make sure that it is natural wastage and that we keep the skills within the service.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I welcome the use of the vacant fire control centre at Fareham. It gives us a chance to recoup some of the half a billion spent on the fire control centres scrapped last year and described by the Public Accounts Committee as flawed from the outset. Will the Minister assure me that the coastguard modernisation process will not suffer the same problems that led to the disaster with the fire control centres? In particular, how will the link between the maritime operations centre and the coastguard stations work in practice?
Mike Penning
Rather than just using the radio, the new centre has unbelievable communication. The state-of-the-art technology has been put into that building at huge cost to the taxpayer, and it is a real shame that I cannot use all the buildings around the country and can only use the one.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister in his statement when considering the pros and cons of Milford Haven and Swansea said that “there are no operational reasons for choosing one of these sites rather than the other”, and that the building in Swansea will remain operational. He said that Swansea was switched off in a planned way to enable Milford Haven to take over, but will he accept that on a number of occasions Milford Haven has closed down in an unplanned way, that Swansea is the second busiest coastguard, that the protest involved hundreds of thousands of people compared with a much smaller protest from Milford Haven, and that people locally will rightly see this as a cynical political, rather than operational, move that will affect the risk to Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Devon?
Mike Penning
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment. I went to Swansea and, after the driver drove through the picket, went back to speak with everyone on the picket line as well as all the staff. I fully admit that there was a planned shutdown during my visit, just as there was a planned shutdown while the refurbishment took place at Swansea, when Milford covered it for weeks and weeks. I am sorry that he was not fully informed about the number of closures that took place in the past. He is absolutely right that sometimes stations go down without warning, which is why we need a national resilience system, which we do not have today. That is the most important thing.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister specifically mentioned the importance of the links between the gas and oil sectors in Aberdeen. He will be aware that that is equally important in the Humber, an area where there is likely to be a rapid expansion in the energy sector in coming years. Will he assure me that he is fully satisfied that the expansion will be fully catered for and that it will be kept under regular review?
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that he would accept that there is a structural difference between the oil and gas sector and offshore wind. We are working much more closely with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed, than ever before. Under the previous Administration decisions were made and the Department for Transport was then told much later. We will work together closely and address any risks as needed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and associate myself with the kind comments of the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The Minister came over to Northern Ireland, listened and clearly delivered, and we are thankful that the Northern Ireland coastguard will be part of the strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom. He indicated that the Northern Ireland coastguard will be responsible not only for Northern Ireland, but for the Clyde. What staff and resources will be made available to the Northern Ireland coastguard to deliver a full and better service?
Mike Penning
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bangor co-ordination centre already covers the Clyde on a regular basis. We will ensure that it is fully staffed, that staff have the right pay and conditions, which we will negotiate with the trade unions and those who are not in the trade unions and—I reiterate—that we have the sort of resilience that the service deserves.
Road Safety (No. 2)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to reduce the permitted blood alcohol level for drivers from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg; to empower the police to suspend an individual’s driving licence pending assessment of his or her suitability to drive; and for connected purposes.
Last Sunday was the world day of remembrance for road traffic victims, which was established in 1993 by the UK-based charity RoadPeace and adopted by the United Nations in 2005 as a response to road crash victims’ need for public recognition. My Bill is dedicated to the memory of two teenage girls who lived in my constituency and whose lives were cruelly taken by the selfish attitude of two drivers in separate incidents almost three years apart. Although the circumstances of each death were different, the outcome was the same for both families: the loss of a much-loved daughter who had her life ahead of her and all that that entailed. Indeed, given current average life expectancy, perhaps 65 years of life were stolen from them—65 Christmases and 65 birthdays. Their life expectations, and possibly marriage and children, were destroyed in seconds because of irresponsible drivers.
Only those who have lost a child, particularly in tragic circumstances, can truly appreciate the enormity of such a loss. I therefore empathise with the parents and admire all they are doing in memory of their respective daughters to campaign to make our roads safer so that other families do not suffer the grief that they continue to experience.
The two girls, 14-year-old Jordan Bell and 16-year-old Cassie McCord, lived in the same part of Colchester, little more than a mile apart and with the former ground of Colchester United football club on Layer road midway between their two homes, but to the best of my knowledge they did not know each other. Jordan was a pupil at Alderman Blaxill secondary school and Cassie was a student at Colchester sixth-form college.
Had there been a lower drink-drive limit in March 2008, the driver who killed Jordan might not have ventured on to the road. He was exceeding the 30 mph speed limit when he struck Jordan as she sought to use a central island refuge on Layer road. Tests revealed that he had been drinking, but he was just 2 mg under the drink-drive limit—78 mg to 100 ml of blood—when he was breathalysed some time after the incident. For taking Jordan’s life, he was fined for careless driving and speeding. I will return to this incident later to describe the campaigning by her parents, Steve and Michelle Bell, to get the drink-drive limit reduced to 50 mg, in line with most of Europe.
Cassie McCord was killed in February by a driver who should never have been on the road. Police were called to a supermarket petrol forecourt where an elderly motorist had caused concern. He was not on the public highway, but in the grounds of the supermarket. They drove his car home, informed him that they would be reporting him to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency because of their concerns about his ability to drive, and they advised him not to drive again. That was on a Friday. On the Monday morning, before the DVLA could act and ignoring the police advice, the 87-year-old driver ventured out on to busy roads and into Colchester town centre, where he mounted the pavement and killed Cassie, who was walking with friends to Colchester sixth-form college.
Cassie’s mother is now campaigning to give police the powers—subject to safeguards, obviously—to suspend a driver’s licence with immediate effect for, say, 72 hours if they have major concerns about the driver’s ability to function. That would give the DVLA time to institute the more formal process it currently operates. Such police action would, I suggest, require the approval of an officer of senior rank, such as superintendent or above.
Had such a power existed earlier this year, the police could have suspended the driving licence of the 87-year-old motorist, and that I think would have deterred him from taking his car back on the road where he killed Cassie McCord. There is a sad postscript. The driver has since died, and no charges were ever brought against him.
There appears to be a loophole in the law. Police have the power to impound a vehicle that is in an unsafe condition, and they can arrest someone for being under the influence of drink or drugs, but seemingly they do not have the power to prevent a driver, whom they consider to be unfit on health grounds, from continuing to drive.
The campaigns by the grieving parents, Mr and Mrs Bell and Mrs McCord, have been brilliantly supported by the award-winning local newspaper, the Essex County Standard, with the reports of chief reporter, Wendy Brading, showing what a campaigning newspaper can do on behalf of the community that it serves.
The campaign by Mr and Mrs Bell—Mr Bell is a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, serving with 16 Air Assault Brigade based at Colchester garrison—is one that led the parents to have a personal meeting with former road safety Minister Mr Paul Clark. I accompanied them to his office at the Department for Transport’s Great Minster house. It was a rather moving occasion, and I cannot thank Mr Clark enough for the way in which matters were handled. His warmth and sincerity meant a lot to my constituents.
We left buoyed by what had transpired, and with a degree of confidence that the drink-drive limit would be reduced. That was certainly our belief, given what occurred at our meeting with the then road safety Minister. Indeed, the North report, published after our meeting with the Minister, recommended a reduction in the drink-drive limit as part of wide-ranging reforms to the driving laws.
It is therefore with considerable annoyance and disbelief that I note how the incoming coalition Government ignored the North report recommendation and decided to leave the drink-drive limit unchanged. My Bill aims to reinstate what the North report recommended. I am pleased to say that in September it was announced that the Parliament in Northern Ireland was looking to lower the drink-drive limit to 50 mg. I suggest that we do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Let me tell the House what Mrs Bell said only last week about the loss of her daughter:
“Every day is a struggle. It is a constant reminder. You try to stay positive, but you are always thinking of the things Jordan will miss out on. She missed her prom and the chance to go to university and getting married and having a family. That has been taken away from us.”
Last week, a tree was planted in Cassie’s memory at Colchester sixth-form college where she was studying. Her friends have launched a campaign called “Cassie’s Law”, backed by the Essex County Standard, and a petition form can be obtained by clicking on the link to “Cassie’s Law” at essexcountystandard.co.uk.
Mrs McCord said last week:
“Nearly everyone we have spoken to about the petition has been supportive. If the Police had been able to take the driver's licence away, Cassie would still be here.”
Mrs McCord would like doctors to use their discretion to write to the DVLA if they feel that a patient is unfit to drive, and she would also like drivers aged 70 and above to be medically assessed to ensure that their reactions are sufficient to allow them to drive safely.
I never use the term “road accident”, because in most instances what occurs is the result of driver failure of some sort. As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I believe that it would be in everyone’s interests if every driver were required to take refresher driving courses every few years, because it is clear that some people think that, having passed the driving test, they are competent to drive for life. We all know that that is not true. There is some appalling driving, of which tailgating, speeding and overtaking in the nearside lane are some of the most worrying examples.
Successive Governments are to be applauded for past actions, which last year saw the smallest number of people killed on our roads since records began 85 years ago. Given that the number of vehicles in the UK is at a record high, that comparison is an even greater achievement than just the bare figures show.
Britain’s roads are the safest in Europe. Worryingly, however, the number of deaths on our roads has started to increase in recent months, so the coalition Government should redouble their efforts to reduce them. The aim should be zero deaths—an impossible dream, I recognise—but as every death is an individual tragedy we should strive to avoid every death. Loss of life in a road crash is the only form of involuntary sudden death that is somehow considered as just one of those things. Well, that is not an attitude a responsible Government should take.
We should not be creating situations where it is known that actions will inevitably lead to more crashes, more injuries and more deaths. Although this is not part of my Bill, I suggest to Transport Ministers that if they raise the speed limit on the motorways, allow moving traffic on to motorway hard shoulders and reduce the frequency of MOT vehicle inspections, they do so in the full knowledge that they will be responsible for more crashes, more injuries, and more deaths. I would not want that on my conscience.
I have, through a written parliamentary question, invited the new Secretary of State for Transport, who I am pleased is in her place, to visit a hospital accident and emergency department to discuss with the medical team there the consequences of dealing with people injured on our roads. I did that in the wake of suggestions to raise the motorway speed limit to 80 mph.
Road safety has interested me for nearly 50 years. As a trainee reporter, I used to cover inquests at a time when road deaths were more common than they are today. I simply could not accept that they were accidents—all could and should have been avoided. For many years, I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on road safety. On 19 December 2000, I had an Adjournment debate entitled “Road Crashes”, reported in Hansard from column 333. I am proud to say that when I was a borough councillor in Colchester, I pioneered the first traffic-calming scheme in the town and the first 20 mph speed limit in Essex. All people who hold elected office have a duty to make our roads safer.
I return to the substance of my Bill. I would like to quote what Mrs Wendy Brading, who is trusted by both families, of the Essex County Standard told me yesterday:
“The point both mothers make is that the drivers in each case had made a selfish choice. One chose to drive while 2 mgs under the drink-drive limit, the other despite advice from the Police. Both acted selfishly and two girls died as a result. This is what they cannot forgive and what has spurred them on, to ensure other families do not go through what they have due to someone’s selfishness.”
In conclusion, my Bill calls for the lowering of the drink-drive limit and for the introduction of measures for the immediate suspension of the licences of those it is clear have health issues. Such measures will assist in saving the lives of innocent people, such as Jordan Bell and Cassie McCord, who were two lovely teenagers cruelly robbed of their lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Bob Russell, Mr David Amess, Mr Mike Hancock, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Huppert, Andrew Miller, Lisa Nandy, Jim Shannon and Andrew Stephenson present the Bill,
Bob Russell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March 2012, and to be printed (Bill 251).
Opposition Day
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about pressures on pensioner households this winter with high and rising fuel prices; notes that the Winter Fuel Payment will be £50 lower in the winter of 2011-12 than in each of the last three years for a pensioner aged 60 or over and £100 lower for those pensioners aged 80 or over; and calls on the Government to review the impact of its decisions on Winter Fuel Payments and VAT, and to announce in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement urgent steps to ease the burden on pensioner households.
It is a pleasure to move the motion standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. colleagues. This motion is about a life and death issue. Fuel poverty and the effects of cold winter weather on the elderly are a lethal combination. Only today, the Office for National Statistics has published figures for cold-related deaths for England and Wales. That report shows that in 2010-11 there were some 25,700 excess winter deaths among old people in England and Wales, which is roughly the same number as last year. However, last year’s figure represented a big increase on the previous year. More people are dying as a result of living in a cold house in the United Kingdom than are dying in road traffic accidents each year.
The figure for excess winter deaths is defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn and the following summer. In the Conservative party manifesto for the 2010 election, these figures were described as “a national disgrace”, and that is absolutely the correct description. This is nothing short of a national catastrophe that affects every region of the United Kingdom. The motion before the House therefore calls for the Chancellor to take
“urgent steps to ease the burden on pensioner households”
right across the United Kingdom.
I want to refer particularly to the situation in our own area of Northern Ireland as an example of the dire circumstances facing many of our senior citizens living in cold houses.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight. Surely, however, the problem is poor pensioner households. The difficulty with the winter fuel allowance is that everybody over 60 or 65 gets it, irrespective of their means, and as a result it has become a generalised payment that helps the rich but does not give enough to the poor.
Mr Dodds
I understand that argument entirely. Indeed, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change pointed to it in its report back in 2010, and I will come on to deal with the targeting of resources and tackling fuel poverty. As for cold weather payments, there is clear evidence that many pensioners do not claim all the benefits to which they are entitled. The benefit of having a universal system is that it reaches all those who need it. I will deal with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted in more detail later.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
In some of the trials aimed at trying to reduce fuel poverty in other parts of the United Kingdom, there has been a conscious drive to improve benefit take-up, and that has made a huge difference to people’s income, far more than the winter fuel payment would make.
Mr Dodds
It is a combination of all these factors. The winter fuel payment does play an important role, as the Government and the Minister have acknowledged. The Government made it very clear in the coalition agreement that they would maintain the payment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that benefit take-up is extremely important, and we should all be doing more to encourage it. Back in Northern Ireland, the Executive have also taken steps to try to encourage benefit take-up. The winter fuel payment plays an important role in tackling this issue.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman support the scheme that was proposed initially by Somerset Community Foundation whereby the winter fuel payment, because it is a universal allowance, could be distributed through community foundations, with the assistance of the Department for Work and Pensions, so that people who are less fortunate and less able to heat their homes could take some or all of the winter fuel payment that is given by those who are a little wealthier ?
Mr Dodds
Let me press ahead and make a little progress, and I will take more interventions in a short while.
I want to refer to the situation in Northern Ireland. Last winter, we had the coldest December in 100 years. In 2009-10, there were almost 1,000 excess winter deaths, 80% of which were of people aged 65 or over. On average, we get 910 such deaths per year, and that figure compares with 590 in 2001-02, so there has been a massive increase over that period. We have to understand that in addition to the stark figures on mortalities, for every death from cold there are eight hospital admissions and more than 100 visits to general practitioners and health centres. This is suffering on a vast scale.
The recent interim report from the Government’s independent review of fuel poverty, conducted by John Hills, states:
“Living in cold homes has a series of effects on illness and mental health.”
I will not go into all the repercussions of cold weather and of living in cold and damp housing on people’s mental and physical health. The interim report outlines those very clearly.
The winter fuel payment was introduced in January 1998 as a tax-free annual payment. Its purpose was and is to alleviate fuel poverty by giving specific help to encourage older people to spend more on heating during the winter. What is happening this year? For the past three years, the winter fuel payment has been £250 for those aged 60 and over, and £400 for those aged 80 and over. Despite spiralling fuel prices—we had a debate only a couple of weeks ago in this House on the crisis in the energy sector—and despite the extremely cold recent winters and the forecasts of a very cold winter to come, in 2011-12 the payment for pensioners aged 60 and over has been reduced by 20% to £200, and the payment for those aged 80 and over has been cut by a quarter to £300. That does not affect just a small group of people; it affects more than 9 million households and about 13 million people throughout the United Kingdom. Some 12.7 million of those people are in Great Britain and some 317,000 are in Northern Ireland.
As a result of the changes, the expenditure on winter fuel payments will fall from approximately £2.75 billion in 2010-11 to some £2.136 billion in 2011-12. That is a substantial monetary saving for the Treasury, but at what cost? That is the question that many people are asking. People in charities or third sector organisations who deal with older people’s issues are making it clear that they fear that this cut, which directly hits the pockets and incomes of pensioner households throughout the United Kingdom, will result in more illness, more disease and more deaths.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very moving case. I am sure that there is not anybody in this Parliament who is not concerned about excess winter deaths and this nation’s terrible legacy of not tackling fuel poverty among the poorest and most vulnerable. In his analysis for this debate, has he looked at the wide range of other measures that the Government have put in place to tackle the issue this winter and to make more lasting, wholesale changes in winters to come?
Mr Dodds
Interventions have an uncanny knack of happening at the precise moment when one is coming on to deal with the very issue that they raise. I will deal with the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. Of course there are other measures aimed at dealing with fuel poverty and coldness-related illness among elderly people. There are the cold weather payments, to which I referred, which some may argue are more specifically targeted. I will come on to that in a moment.
There is also the warm home discount. Recently, the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously passed an appeal to the Government to think again on this issue, and when the Minister replied he referred to, among other things, the warm home discount scheme. However, the scheme applies only in Great Britain, because the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland. Half a million pensioners benefit from that scheme in Great Britain, but pensioners in Northern Ireland do not. I am sure that the Minister will address that point.
There are also other measures. On the practical health side, there is the flu vaccination scheme. Northern Ireland has its own warm homes scheme, which I am glad to say was introduced under devolution by a Democratic Unionist party Minister. It has helped 80,000 households and has received widespread support in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland also has a boiler replacement scheme and the social protection fund, which the Executive have brought forward. I understand that discussions are under way to address the specific issue of fuel poverty and the elderly in Northern Ireland. So yes, there are a range of measures, and we need to keep investing in such things as energy efficiency and home insulation to prevent fuel poverty in the long term.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Dodds
In a moment.
However, I say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and the House that those other measures do not mean that we can cut the winter fuel payment to such a massive extent. It goes directly to our senior citizens and is an important tool. It is not the only tool—it goes only to senior citizens but, as I have said, they are disproportionately affected—but it is an invaluable tool in helping to tackle fuel poverty among the elderly.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
Looking at the standard Library note on the issue, I am interested to see that the standard payment for the winter fuel allowance has been £200 and £300 since 2003, supplemented by one-off extra payments in the past three years, so the standard rate has remained the same. The right hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that in 2006-07 and 2007-08, that one-off payment was withdrawn and the amount paid was the standard payment of £200 and £300. Does he have any data about the increase in deaths in that period and whether there was a real effect of that money being withdrawn?
Mr Dodds
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the standard rate, and of course when the Chancellor made his announcement about the winter fuel allowance earlier this year he did not dwell on it in any great detail. In fact, he passed over the issue almost completely, and we found out about it only in the small print. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it beggars belief that whereas it was thought okay to have the increase in each of the last three years, the Chancellor and the Government have chosen this year to cut the extra payments for our senior citizens, despite the anxiety that was expressed throughout the House just a few weeks ago about extremely high and rising energy prices across the country.
When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister on 2 November, he said:
“we have kept the plans that were set out by the previous Government and I think that is the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 918.]
I have listened to the Prime Minister and Ministers speak many times about their spending plans and what the previous Government did, but I do not think I have often heard them say that. On virtually every occasion they have said that the previous Government’s plans were leading to economic disaster, yet on this issue, and only on this issue, they pray in aid the fact that the previous Government were, they say, going to cut the allowance, and that it is therefore the right thing to do. Frankly, that is not good enough. I leave it to the Opposition to outline what their position was.
The Government have decided to maintain health spending at a certain level, saying that it needs to be ring-fenced. They have said that international aid spending needs to be protected, and that we needed to spend money to intervene in Libya. I have no difficulty with any of those things—I support them—but now the Government say that it is right to cut payments to our senior citizens, at a time when they are suffering from extreme cold and high and rising energy prices, because that was what the previous Government had planned. That is a shabby argument, and not one that bears any kind of scrutiny. The Government should stand on their own two feet, argue their case for themselves and justify it to the House and the country.
I want to pay tribute to groups such as Age NI for their work in Northern Ireland, and to Age Sector Platform, which has been very busy in recent months running a significant campaign called Fight the Winter Fuel Cut. Recently, a group from Northern Ireland led by Margaret Galloway, Michael Monaghan and Nixon Armstrong travelled to Westminster and presented the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), with a petition. Hundreds of people are signing that petition every day.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Northern Ireland, will he reflect on the fact that, for the first time, a commissioner for older people—and a very good one in Claire Keatinge, who was formerly the director of the Alzheimer’s Society—has been appointed? Does he see a role for the commissioner on the issue of winter fuel payments? How could she influence the Government to do the right thing? We hear a lot of criticism of human rights in the House, but there is a guarantee that no one in the UK should experience degrading treatment. For older people, the Government’s policy seems like degrading treatment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Dodds
I certainly do agree with the hon. Lady, who rightly points to the important step taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive of appointing a commissioner for older people, which follows the appointment in Wales of someone who fulfils the same kind of role. I have no doubt that the commissioner, who I agree is an excellent appointment, will be active in putting to Northern Ireland Executive Ministers the case for our older people. As I outlined earlier, a number of things are currently being undertaken by the Executive, and they are considering others, to help our older people. However, what the hon. Lady says on winter fuel payments, which affects the entire country, and which is for decision and debate in this House, should carry some considerable weight.
On whether the allowance is poorly targeted and whether it is the appropriate way in which to deal with fuel poverty—the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) mentioned this—the argument against the universal payment principle overlooks the fact that many of those entitled to, for instance, pension credit, do not receive it, for a variety of reasons. In Northern Ireland, somewhere in the region of £60 million is not claimed by those who are entitled to pension credit. Those people are hit with a double whammy: they do not get pension credit or cold weather payments, because the latter go only to those who claim the former. The only way to ensure that the most vulnerable people get financial help is to keep the universal payment. I believe that there is no dispute between the Government and those who agree with me, because the Conservative party pledged in its manifesto that the allowance would be kept.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a potent argument, but does he share my concern that cold weather payments are triggered by monitoring equipment in only certain parts of the country? My area shares the same climate characteristics as his, and my constituents regularly lose out, which is why the universality of the wider payment is a much better system.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Another point is that, currently, cold weather payments are not taxed—they go directly to the person and the payments cover everyone. If the money is put through in different ways, it could be taxed and off-takes would come into operation. That would affect not just those 13 million people, because the families of many old-age pensioners supplement their parents' incomes to make sure they are okay.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that people are 14 times more likely to spend the winter fuel allowance on fuel than they would be if their incomes were increased in other ways. If an allowance is given specifically to spend on fuel, people are more likely to spend it on fuel; they would be less likely spend an allowance on fuel if it was not designated as a fuel poverty measure. There are strong arguments—for reasons that hon. Members and I have outlined—for retaining the universal payment of a winter fuel payment at current levels, and for indexing payments to the rising cost of energy. Some have argued that at a time of pressing demands on the Treasury and given the state of the economy, that would be a luxury we can ill afford. As I have indicated, money has been found for the priorities that the Government have deemed essential: the protection of international aid budgets, taking a penny off fuel duty, ring-fencing NHS budgets and so on. It is vital, however, that we also prioritise saving the lives of our senior citizens in times of very cold weather.
The chief medical officer has said that the annual cost to the NHS of treating winter-related diseases resulting from cold private housing is estimated at about £860 million, but that does not include additional spending by social services, economic loss through days off sick, and so on, which means that the total cost to the NHS and the country as a whole is unknown. However, we do know that every £1 invested in keeping homes warm saves the NHS 42p in health costs, so again this money would be well spent, and it could save the NHS more money in the long term.
Levels of fuel poverty in this country are staggering: in England, 18% of households are in fuel poverty; in Wales, it is 26%; in Scotland, it is 33%; and in Northern Ireland, it is 44%. It is right across the board. That equates to 302,000 households in Northern Ireland alone, 75,000 of which are in extreme fuel poverty, which means that they spend 20% or more of their income on fuel. Furthermore, almost half of all fuel-poor households in the country are headed by over-65s, so clearly fuel poverty disproportionately affects the elderly to a staggering degree.
Yet the situation will only get worse. I have highlighted the rising cost of fuel. In the past five years to October 2011, the retail price of gas in the UK rose by 52%, and the price of oil rose by 86%. In Northern Ireland, the situation is much worse. The price of home heating oil, which is a product that we depend on, has risen by 63% in the past two years and by 150% since 2003. Almost 70% of homes in Northern Ireland depend on it for their primary source of heating—that figure is 82% in rural areas—yet the price of oil has risen beyond anyone’s imagination.
Mr Weir
The situation is similar in rural Scotland. I have previously suggested—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this proposal—that the Government make the fuel allowance available earlier in the year to those who rely on home heating oil, when price and demand are lower, allowing them to fill up before the winter hits and the price tends to rocket.
Mr Dodds
Yes, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about those who depend on home heating oil. These are one-off payments of about £600 for 900 litres of oil—it is a lump-sum payment—so it would be extremely helpful to people to have that money in their hands when they were able to buy more oil at a lower price. He makes an extremely good point.
The picture is stark: we have much higher energy costs; there are considerable pressures on pensioner household incomes owing to lower savings returns; and increases in VAT are hitting everybody hard, but hitting pensioners particularly hard. Furthermore, pensioners tend to be on fixed-retirement incomes, and we know that, according to a recent report, the cost of living has risen by one fifth for older people over the past four years, compared with 14% for the population as a whole.
At the last election, the parties made a number of pledges. On pensioners, the Conservative party described the number of excess winter deaths as a national disgrace, and it said:
“we want to set the record straight. Labour are sending cynical and deceptive leaflets to pensioners’ homes saying we would cut their benefits. This is an outright lie, and here it is in black and white: we will protect pensioners’ benefits and concessions, and this includes: the Pension Credit; the Winter Fuel Allowance; free bus passes; and, free TV licences.”
I defy anybody out there in the public to interpret that statement as anything other than a pledge not only to maintain the existence of the winter fuel allowance, so that it continued to be paid as a benefit, but to maintain it at the same rate at which people were receiving it when the election was called. What other interpretation can we put on those words?
The Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto before the last election that they would reform winter fuel payments, extending them to all severely disabled people, and that this would be paid for by delaying age-related winter fuel payments until people reached 65. However, the Minister, who is in his place, said earlier this month:
“There are no plans to extend provision under the winter fuel payment scheme.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 719W.]
The coalition programme for government stated:
“We will protect key benefits for older people such as the winter fuel allowance,”
and so on. Then there is the argument about the Labour party’s position and what Labour was proposing—or not proposing—to do had it remained in office.
I point to those pledges for this reason. People say today that politicians, Parliament and this House are disconnected from ordinary people. People are losing faith in politics; and is it any wonder, when they read those clear statements and are led to believe one thing, but then, as soon as the election takes place and the same politicians come to office, they turn round and do something entirely different? Their argument in doing so is: “Well, we’re only doing what the previous Government said they would do.” When people can so cynically disregard the pledges that they make on such an important issue, that is another reason for the disconnect between politicians and the public out there.
Sir Robert Smith
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he think that one reason for the disconnect is perhaps also the previous Government’s mistaken decision to raise the rate to a level that they did not think they could afford to maintain in the long term? That was where the disconnect started.
Mr Dodds
I have not heard it said that the level of the payments made over the last three years was unsustainable. I have never heard anybody make that argument.
Let us be fair: the Government have made choices. They have decided, because of the economic situation and the deficit, to cut expenditure in certain areas. In other areas, they have decided to maintain or increase spending. That is the choice of the Government and the majority of the Members of this House; but do not let anyone pretend that the Government had no choice about winter fuel payments or that they had to do what they did. They did not have to do it: they chose to pick this area for cuts and not others. That is a reprehensible choice—a choice that is not justified either economically or morally. At a time of so many excess winter deaths among our older population, it is appalling that cuts should be aimed at that sector of our population.
Mr Dodds
I am pressing to a conclusion now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in order to speak, as other Members will want to.
The winter fuel payment should be restored to the amount that was paid over the past three years. Indeed, I would go further and say that future payments should be indexed to reflect rising energy prices. After all, when the winter fuel payment was initially introduced, it paid over half the cost of an older person’s fuel bill, whereas the current level is nowhere near high enough to meet those bills. Our attitude to this issue goes a long way towards illustrating our attitude to the treatment of our older people throughout the country. I hope that the whole House will join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting the motion this evening, and I commend it to the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
May I first thank the Democratic Unionists for bringing this subject for debate before the House? It is an important and significant issue. As we have heard from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), particular aspects of the issue have particular resonance in Northern Ireland. I shall make some reference to the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is worth setting the UK-wide context for the decisions taken about the level of the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the Government had choices to make, and they made a choice about the cold weather payment, but I do not know whether he is aware that that choice was a significant one—one that I believe has proved to be correct.
The backdrop was as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) described it a few moments ago. Initially, the winter fuel payment was only for people on means-tested benefits, or a higher rate went to those eligible for means-tested benefits, but eventually, some years ago, it got up to its full universal rate of £200 and it stayed at that level year after year; it was not indexed. Then we reached two years before a general election when the public finances were looking good and the then Chancellor decided to make a one-off increase to £250 and £400. As I say, when it was announced, it was announced as a one-off. Then we reached the year before the general election and the Government of the day thought that cutting the winter fuel payment would look bad so near to the election, so they announced a further one-off increase to £250 and £400. They stressed again that it was a one-off.
Then we reach the March Budget of 2010, and it became apparent in March that the Government would have to announce the rate for winter 2010. Funnily enough, six weeks before a general election did not seem like the right time to reverse a one-off increase, so a further one-off increase was announced again for the winter of 2010. We know it was a one-off increase because the public spending plans of the previous Government were published into the new Parliament. We thus know that the plans we inherited were to cut the winter fuel payment back to its core level of £200 for the winter we are now going into and for succeeding winters. That was the baseline against which we made our decisions.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister is outlining what happened under the previous Government and stressing that the single or “one-off” payment as he has described it on several occasions was maintained just before an election. Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) alluded to the Government’s statement that they would keep faith with the previous Government and in conjunction with what the Minister has just said, does it mean that in three years’ time he will reinstate the cold weather payment?
Steve Webb
Well, obviously, cynicism would be well beyond this Government. The rates of public spending are published through a comprehensive spending review period and for the rest of this period the figure we inherited was £200. That, as I say, was our baseline.
Another strange thing that went on was to do with the cold weather payment. That is the money paid when it is freezing cold to the poorest and most vulnerable people—the poorest pensioners and the poorest disabled people. Temporarily, pre-election, that was increased from the regular £8.50 to £25 a week. Temporarily, too, for the year after the election, as announced before the election, it was to be maintained at £25 a week. You will not be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that beyond that, it was planned to be slashed back to the £8.50 a week level. In other words, had we done nothing and taken no action, the winter fuel payment would have reverted to its £200 level and the cold weather payment paid to the most vulnerable when it is most cold would have reverted to £8.50 a week.
Let me remind Members that that was the baseline from which we were trying to find something in the order of £70 billion to £80 billion-worth of savings, so the question was not whether we should cut the winter fuel payment or the cold weather payment, but whether we could find the money to reverse the planned cuts, and thus have to find still further cuts from across the budget.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North on one point—that Governments have to make choices about priorities. He listed some of the priorities of this Government: ring-fencing the NHS, for example, about which I suspect the pensioners of Northern Ireland will be glad. He also mentioned the penny on petrol duty. I was not aware that it was his policy that we should not have reversed that, but I am happy to be corrected.
Mr Dodds
I am sure that the Minister was listening when I said that I supported those priorities. My point was that the Government had decided to increase or maintain spending in certain areas but to target cuts on other areas, and I wanted to know why they had targeted our senior citizens.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the measures that he listed were measures that he supports. I had assumed that, having begun by telling the House that we should spend an extra £600 million on something, he would in the course of his speech identify something on which we should spend £600 million less. Given that he spoke for 30-odd minutes, I may have missed it.
Mr Dodds
I could have taken much more time—indeed, I had a page devoted to areas that we could cut—but I considered it to be in the interests of the debate to leave time for others to speak. I am sure that my colleagues will make similar points, but may I begin by suggesting that the Minister reverse his attachment to Europe and save the £400 million that is going to the External Action Service, along with all the other money that is being wasted? And what about the £80 million that he wasted on the alternative vote referendum, which could have gone towards helping older people rather than being wasted on a trivial political exercise?
Steve Webb
It is intriguing that, in presenting a 30-minute explanation of why we should spend a further £600 million, the right hon. Gentleman should remove the bit about where the money should come from, which seems to me to be fairly central to the debate.
Faced with that baseline of a proposed reversion to a £200 winter fuel payment and an £8.50 cold weather payment, we could simply have gone ahead with the previous plans, and found our £70 billion to £80 billion on top of that. However, we took the view—as does the right hon. Gentleman—that fuel poverty matters, and we therefore found the money that would enable us to reverse the planned cut in the cold weather payment. I believe that ours was the right priority. If we are concerned about the most vulnerable when it is most cold in the coldest of winters, we should bear in mind that an increase from £8.50 to £25 gives people the confidence to turn up their heating when it is bitterly cold. The system even allows cold weather payments to be triggered by a forecast. It need not actually have been freezing cold; we merely have to expect it to be freezing cold.
Last winter in Northern Ireland, we made 672,000 cold weather payments at a cost of £16.8 million. Had we not reversed the earlier decision, the value of those payments would have fallen by about two thirds. Our decision put about £10 million into the hands of the poorest pensioners and disabled people in Northern Ireland during a bitterly cold winter, and I am proud that we made it.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. A number of Members in all parts of the House contact me about cold weather payments for which I am responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for example, wrote to me saying that he did not think that the cold weather stations in his constituency matched the actual pattern of cold weather.
I have been very impressed by the work of my officials, who take seriously every representation received about cold weather stations. We change them every year in response to such representations. There will be stations in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but if he thinks that they are in the wrong place or measuring the wrong data, I can tell him that we work very closely with the Met Office, and respond thoroughly and carefully to all submissions. As far as I am aware, I have not received a submission from the hon. Gentleman, but I apologise if he has already contacted me. If he has not, I encourage him to do so.
Mr McCann
The issue has been raised both by me and by my predecessor. My nearest cold weather station is Bishopton. As anyone from Scotland will know, East Kilbride is one of the coldest places in the country during the winter. However, there is no monitoring equipment, although South Lanarkshire council has monitoring equipment in the constituency to ensure that gritting takes place. I should be grateful if the matter could be looked into.
Steve Webb
I am happy to do that. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to give me as much detail as possible in writing. In general, as I have said, I have been impressed by how responsive the system is.
Steve Webb
I will give way in a moment. There is a recognition that, wherever we put the cold weather stations to try to capture some of the variation in climate, such as the seven stations that serve Northern Ireland—
Steve Webb
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) first and then to the hon. Gentleman. No matter where we put the cold weather stations, somebody, somewhere says, “Hang on a minute, it is in the wrong side of the postcode” and so on. We keep these things under constant review because we want the system to work.
Sir Robert Smith
I wish to reinforce the point that the Minister has made. A submission was made that there should be a measuring station at Aboyne in my constituency and the Minister decided that there will be, which means that people living in the colder inland part of the constituency no longer have to rely on measurements taken in a coastal community.
Steve Webb
Indeed. I feel that I am acquiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the remoter parts of Scotland through this role, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that we listen to representations that are made and take them seriously.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Just two weeks ago, the Northern Ireland Assembly was informed of a change in my constituency, whereby the existing station in Ballykelly, which is a few miles inland, is to be replaced by a new station in Magilligan, which is right on the coast. The Minister will be aware that it is inevitable that coastal stations will be a degree or two warmer than those inland, so 3,500 people might or might not get a cold weather payment on the basis of a reading from a slightly warmer cold weather station.
Steve Webb
As I said a moment ago, we work closely with the Met Office on these matters. I do not claim expertise on meteorological matters, but the Met Office does. Where changes are made to metering stations it is always with a view to being more accurate, rather than less. There is certainly no attempt made to move them to where the sun shines. We will examine that issue this winter. If the hon. Gentleman’s impression from this winter is that that change is causing problems, I will be happy to hear from him.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister told us that by maintaining the cold weather payment of the previous year this Government had given an additional £10 million to pensioners in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us how much money he is denying to pensioners in Northern Ireland by refusing to maintain the level of the winter fuel allowance? Has he done the same calculation?
Steve Webb
What we have done is preserve the amount that was scheduled to be spent in Northern Ireland exactly as planned. Clearly, £50 a head in Northern Ireland is probably slightly more than the figure for the cold weather payment. I did some mental arithmetic while the right hon. Member for Belfast North was speaking and I suspect that that figure is slightly larger. The key choice was between doing nothing—taking our baseline and taking £70 billion or £80 billion out—and trying to reverse at least one of the cuts. I think that the right thing to do was address the cold weather payment.
Let me give a slightly cheeky example of why that was our priority. I checked the dates of birth of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland and found that at least one of them would, in principle, qualify for a winter fuel payment—I am not going to name names. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I am not even going to look in the direction of the person I am talking about.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I hoped to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and at the commencement of my speech I was going to make it very clear that I qualify for the winter fuel payment. When I have received it, I have always given it to a disabled family who do not get that allowance. I am happy even to give the names of the people who receive it.
Steve Webb
That is entirely the response that I expected. The point is that not everyone would perhaps respond in quite that way. Given the choice between spending the money on at least some folk gracious and generous enough to give it away, or on people who self-evidently desperately need it because they are on a low income or are disabled and it is freezing cold, the priority at a time when money is tight is obvious. This is one decision that I would defend.
Mr Weir
Will the Minister address the point? Whether he is saving money on one or the other, he has just admitted that the figure spent in Northern Ireland is lower than it would have been overall. However, the cost of energy has rocketed in the past year or two, so every pensioner in Northern Ireland or in any other place in the United Kingdom is paying more for their energy and is suffering through this system. Would it not be better to put some money in to ease that suffering?
Steve Webb
Absolutely, and I shall come on to the whole subject of the fuel poverty strategy that we have adopted. I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) suggested in an intervention, that the correlation between the rate of the winter fuel payment and the depth and impact of fuel poverty is incredibly weak, if it is there at all. In other words, we have seen the winter fuel payment go up and go down, yet if that was plotted against the terrible problem of excess winter deaths or fuel poverty, I suspect there would be no correlation at all. When money is tight, we should be prioritising how we spend it so that it will do the most good.
As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) rightly says, fuel bills have shot up. Surely the priority should be stopping people paying a fortune for their fuel when half the heat goes out through poorly insulted walls, windows and lofts. Every year, it is tempting to say that this winter we should put cash into people’s hands because it is cold. Of course that is true, but if we always put off the hard work of insulation, energy efficiency and so on, the situation will be the same the next winter and the one after that. Money spent on energy efficiency will save pensioners and others money every winter, rather than our giving them cash one year, only for the heat to go out through poorly insulated roofs and windows.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister has outlined one facet of the problem, but one of the major facets has not been touched on today, although it has been mentioned in Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. We really need to look at the cartels among the oil companies and to ask what discussions the Government have had with the oil companies. Equally, the increase in VAT is having an impact.
Steve Webb
Obviously, the VAT increase does not affect fuel prices directly as they are on a reduced rate, but the hon. Gentleman is right that competition in the energy sector is a key concern of the Government, whether that is in gas, electricity or oil. Our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are in regular and close contact with the competition authorities, but one thing the Government are doing is ensuring that people are aware of their ability to switch and get much better tariffs—that is particularly the case with electricity and gas. Clearly, we can do things for the long term, such as sort out the housing stock, but we can also do things for the short term, such as ensure that people get the best price available. There is huge potential to do a lot more that does not necessarily involve hundreds of millions of pounds of Government spending but would benefit people substantially.
Sarah Newton
Does my hon. Friend agree that the recently commissioned and reported Office of Fair Trading document that specifically, at the Minister’s request, investigated off-grid energy competition was able to recommend a series of actions to improve the market for heating oil this winter, avoiding the terrible problems we experienced last winter? The OFT has now gone on to look at liquefied petroleum gas. The Ministers in DECC are doing everything they can to ensure that the off-grid energy markets are fully functioning.
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend is quite right. In Northern Ireland, dependence on heating oil is substantially greater than it is on the mainland and even in a semi-rural constituency such as my own, oil prices, oil supply and so on are big issues. I am grateful for her kind words about our ministerial colleagues as these are important matters.
Let me go back to the issue of fuel poverty. Clearly, it has a number of components and one is income. We focused on a change from last year’s rate to this year’s of less than £1 a week in the winter fuel payment and that is what we are talking about today. Instead, we have taken the basic state pension, which for 30 years has been declining relative to wages, and put a triple lock on it so that every year from now on, pensioners in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will see their pensions rise by the highest number of inflation measured by the consumer prices index, earnings and 2.5%. We are in a strange period in which inflation is greater than earnings, but in most years, earnings have grown faster. That will mean that as we return to more normal times, pensioners will enjoy above inflation standard of living increases year after year.
The cost of that commitment—I hope that the Chancellor is not listening at this point—will add a total of £45 billion to the amount we spend on pensions by the mid-2020s, which gives a sense of the magnitude of what we have announced. That is rather invisible at the moment, because prices are higher than earnings. When I signed the legislation into law last year, I expected bells to peal and for there to be confetti on the floor and so on. That has not quite happened yet, because people have not seen the impact. In the longer term, it will give a sustained boost to the real incomes of pensioners in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Mr Dodds
The Minister raises the issue of the triple lock. Previously, in the autumn statement the Chancellor has always announced the increase in line with the September rate of inflation, which would mean a 5.2% increase. Does the Minister expect the Chancellor to do the same this year, and would he rebuke the Chancellor if he were to take an annual inflation figure? Given what he has said, I take it that he is very much in favour of the former.
Steve Webb
The Chancellor was asked this very question at Treasury questions recently, and he confirmed, as is entirely in line with my view, that the triple lock is something of which we are proud. I am sure that we will be just as proud next Tuesday when he announces his verdict.
This is not just about the basic state pension: it is also about pension credit. As has rightly been pointed out, we need to make sure that pension credit take-up is maximised and we already do many things in that regard. Some people may not know that they can ring an 0800 number—a freephone number—to claim pension credit. They might think there is a long and complicated form to fill out, but in fact they can claim it over the phone and can also claim housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time. We also undertake a lot of activity to engage with people who might be eligible. For example, we mention pension credit to people when they claim the state pension or when they report a change in their circumstances such as a bereavement. We also have a visiting service so that if people are not online or perhaps are not able to get out, DWP and local authority staff go out to their home and fill in forms with them in their front room.
As a Department, we are doing quite a lot to encourage take-up, but I am aware that the Democratic Unionist party manifesto mentioned trying to pay pension credit automatically. We have been piloting that in Great Britain and I can update the House on that exercise. We took a random sample of about 2,000 customers who were not receiving pension credit but whom we thought, based on what we knew about them, appeared to be entitled to it. For 12 weeks, we paid them the money anyway without their having to make a claim and then we contacted them and said, “By the way, we’ve just given you some free money. This is what we think you would get on pension credit—would you like to make a claim for it?”
The delivery phase of that study ran from November 2010 to March 2011 and an evaluation is now under way, but I can update the House on the early findings from that research. We found that by August, after the process had finished, a percentage of those involved in the study had successfully claimed pension credit. I am going to ask Members to think to themselves what percentage I am about to say, assuming that no one has read what we published. So, of the 2,000 people to whom we gave pension credit because we thought they were entitled to it, what percentage do hon. Members think then successfully claimed it? I shall not do a straw poll at this point. The answer is just 9%, which is a very low figure. Given that 3% of those in the control sample claimed, if we had done nothing we would have had 3% claiming anyway, whereas we had 9%.
We found that those who did go on to claim pension credit did so because the study had raised their awareness of the benefit and their potential eligibility for it, as one might expect. We talked to some of those who did not claim and found that some of them retained the view that they were not entitled to it even though we had contacted them and given them the money. Some felt that they did not need it, which is fair enough, some did not claim because of health issues, others forgot and some did not quite understand what was going on. It was a complex process, and we will publish a rigorous evaluation of it. It would be great if we could spot all the folk who are not taking pension credit and get the money to them automatically, but the early indications are that that will not be the case and that this approach is not a silver bullet that will enable us to deliver the money automatically. However, we will see what lessons we can learn from the pilot and I shall be happy to update the House on that a bit nearer the time.
Lady Hermon
May I establish when the Minister last visited Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) gave the statistic in his opening remarks that 75,000 homes in Northern Ireland are in extreme—that is the word he used—fuel poverty. With the greatest respect to the Minister—and I do have the greatest respect for him—I would like him to visit Northern Ireland and come to some of those homes. It is absolutely degrading for an elderly person to have to eliminate their television because they cannot afford a television licence, or to have to choose between food and fuel. This is a really serious problem in Northern Ireland.
Steve Webb
I do not doubt for a second the point that the hon. Lady, for whom I have a great deal of respect, makes. Obviously, as a GB Minister, I am responsible for these matters in Great Britain. Fuel poverty is a devolved matter, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will respond to the debate, was in Northern Ireland last week. Yesterday I spoke to the Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development to discuss with him these issues as they affect Northern Ireland. He was keen to stress some of the measures that the Executive are taking—for example, the double glazing of social housing.
That comes back to the point I was making, which was that this is partly about 98p a week on the winter fuel payment, which is what we are discussing, but far more about stopping people having highly energy-inefficient homes and giving them a decent, dignified standard of living. If hon. Members think about the difference that we are going to make through the triple lock on the basic pension, it swamps the 98p that we are talking about today and will make a real impact on the living standard of pensioners over decades to come.
Nicola Blackwood
On energy efficiency and insulation, proposals have come from the Government, including the green deal. My concern relates to my hon. Friend’s comments about pension credit and uptake by the most vulnerable groups. Have any discussions taken place with the Department of Energy and Climate Change about how to improve uptake by those groups, who would benefit most from the proposals?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of take-up. Clearly, benefits such as cold weather payments and the warm home discount, which is the £120 off fuel bills in Great Britain, as I mentioned in the letter that I sent, are contingent on receiving an income-related benefit. That is a challenge that we always face. We want to target those who are most vulnerable, but if some of those who are vulnerable miss out on the passported benefits, how do we get that money through without spending it on everyone, resulting in it being spread much more thinly? That is a permanent trade-off and why we are looking at ways of improving the take-up of these benefits and having a mixed strategy—a mix of a universal winter fuel payment that goes to everyone regardless of whether they claim, and targeted help for those most in need.
As a Department we are working with organisations such as Age UK to try to make sure that pension credit materials are provided to them. Those organisations have responded positively to make sure that the literature we provide is easy to understand and reaches the people who need it. I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point that there will always be gaps, and we need to address that. My view in the long run is that if we can have state pension reform that guarantees a state pension above the basic means test, that will go a long way to addressing some of these issues, but perhaps that is for another day.
I do not want to go on too long but I will mention, briefly, the warm home discount. This is important because it is the subject of negotiation between the Government and the big six energy companies in Great Britain that will give £120 off the electricity bills of 600,000 of the poorest pensioners. That will make a real contribution. We do it through electricity bills because pretty much everybody has an electricity bill, not because we think the price of electricity has necessarily gone up more, but it does not apply in Northern Ireland.
There is an interesting question about the negotiations or discussions between the Northern Ireland Executive and Power NI, for example, about whether the Northern Ireland providers could be asked to do the same sort of thing. If the big six are doing it in Great Britain, I cannot immediately see why the same should not benefit pensioners in Northern Ireland. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members could take that back and challenge their own power suppliers to do more.
Clearly, we need to make people aware not just of the means-tested benefits they can get, but of the help with insulation, cavity walls and so on. Further in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), we as a Government are sending letters to about 4 million of the most vulnerable energy customers, letting them know that they have access to heavily discounted insulation for their lofts and cavity walls. Even when we write directly to people, we do not always get the results that we want, but we are aiming to target people directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the Minister aware that 43% of those over 75 years of age live in unfit houses? Is that not a group that he should target specifically?
Steve Webb
Perhaps I was not explaining myself clearly. There is a whole raft of things that we are doing precisely because low-income households cannot afford the large capital costs of insulation. There is the green deal, the letters that we are sending about subsidised insulation, cavity wall insulation and so on, and the measures that we require the energy companies to take under the carbon emissions reduction target, the CERT scheme. There is a whole raft of things that we are doing, precisely because of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which subsidises insulation. It is perhaps a misnomer to talk about that as being long term. Someone’s house can be insulated tomorrow, which will mean savings on their heating bills. It will take a long time to work through the whole housing stock, but that has an immediate and beneficial impact on people today. Perhaps “long term” was not quite the right phrase.
Steve Webb
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I know that he is responding to the debate, so he will have the chance to make the points that he wants to make shortly.
I entirely accept that the decision about whether to carry on with Labour’s planned cuts in the winter fuel payment and cold weather payment was a difficult one. We could have gone ahead with both those cuts, which would still have left us having to find £70 billion to £80 billion of deficit reduction, but we took the view that we should target those most in need through the cold weather payment scheme. I am proud that we reversed that cut; that we found the money to pay the large number of cold weather payments that we did in Northern Ireland last year. But the long-term solution to this has not got to be £1 a week either way on the winter fuel payment; it has got to be home energy efficiency and decent incomes for pensioners, both today and in the long term. It has got to be making sure that people are not wasting their money paying high energy bills, but that their homes are kept warm. One of the striking things about the issue of excess winter deaths is that in many Scandinavian countries, which have much colder climates than we do, they do not have such a thing as excess winter deaths, simply because the homes are built to a decent standard to begin with.
There is a broad agenda here well beyond the rate of one particular social security benefit, but I can say to the House that we are absolutely committed to tackling fuel poverty. The reverse of the planned cut in the cold weather payment is one of the things that we have done, but I hope that I have given the House a feel for many of the other measures that we are taking that will tackle the issue not just for this winter but for the long term as well.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues for bringing this important matter before the House today. The debate is extremely timely, as we are at that point in the year when pensioners are already worrying about what the coming winter weather has in store for them. In my constituency—and in the right hon. Gentleman’s too, no doubt, since he is just across the water from me—we are already experiencing rather colder weather than we have here in London.
All of us on the Opposition Benches know, and many on the Government Benches also know, although they may not openly admit it, that people are feeling the squeeze of rising prices. They are increasingly worried about the basic costs of living, particularly food and fuel prices. With unemployment at its highest level for 17 years, and more women out of work than at any time since 1988, more and more people are struggling to make ends meet.
The real problem is that this out-of-touch Government seem to have no idea what it is like for ordinary people who are trying desperately to keep their heads above water. It is time that out-of-touch Ministers realised how tough things are for pensioners right now and how their policies are making things even harder. This year, pensioners are facing not just a double whammy, which was referred to earlier, but a triple whammy of higher VAT, soaring energy prices and what is effectively a cut to the amount of money that they receive in their pockets to assist with winter fuel payments.
I do not think that the Government understand why people are so outraged that the energy companies can increase their profit margins eight times over at the same time as every household in the country is seeing their bills go sky high. The “Plug the Debt” campaign launched by Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice has highlighted:
“The average energy bill has risen by over 21% since autumn 2010 from £1,069 per year to £1,273.”
I have heard the Minister say that that is only a pound a week, or a small amount, and £200 a year might not mean much to the well-off or the millionaire, but believe me it is a huge amount for a pensioner household with a fixed income, where every penny is a prisoner.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Is it the Opposition’s policy to reverse the decrease from £250 to £200 a year that they proposed and increase it back to £250?
Cathy Jamieson
I will spend some time dealing with that point during the course of the debate, but I want to say at the outset that it is time this Government took responsibility for their actions, rather than constantly blaming someone else for unpopular decisions.
Mr David Hamilton
Last week a Mr and Mrs Watt visited my constituency surgery. They do not make the distinction when losing that £50. They believed that they had a promise of £250. When £50 is taken off, a technical argument about whether or not that £50 is there is inappropriate. I also wish to point out that when the winter fuel allowance was first introduced—before some Members came into this place—it was temporary for the first few years and then we made it permanent. This Government could have done exactly the same.
Cathy Jamieson
I am sure that Mr and Mrs Watt are fairly typical of many of the pensioners we all see in our surgeries. It is not only my hon. Friend’s constituents who see this as a cut. The charity director of Age UK said earlier this year:
“While the uplift was billed as a temporary measure, renewed annually, for those older people struggling to pay fuel bills, this is a question of semantics and they will view the measure as a cut.”
Pensioners view the measure as a cut as less money is going into their pockets.
I know from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, that the average household energy bill is around 14% higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. In the 21st century, it is absolutely shocking that around 1,300 are estimated to have died from cold weather-related illnesses in Northern Ireland last year.
I must also gently point out to the Minister and other Government Members that, although advising consumers to shop around and switch suppliers might make sense to some people, many of the pensioners I have spoken to find the range of tariffs and options on standing charges completely baffling. If people do not have access to the internet and the price comparison sites that the better-off might use, where are they to start? Pensioners do not want the hassle of complicated forms and do not always trust advice given over the phone, particularly after the bad publicity about people feeling under pressure to switch suppliers.
I heard what the Minister said about there being an 0800 number to call for advice. I do not know whether he has sat with constituents and tried—[Interruption.] He mentions pension credit, but I do not know whether he has sat with constituents who use a range of advice lines and sometimes find them difficult to use. They might be pensioners who are unused to speaking in detail over the phone and find it an off-putting experience. It is important that people can have face-to-face advice and I would welcome any effort he can make in that regard.
I also want to mention briefly those who are off-grid, and there are similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas. It is not so simple for people in those areas to shop around, although some helpful work has been done, for example, in ensuring that there are co-operative ways for communities to come together to purchase fuel. I hope that that is something the Government will support.
With consumer prices index inflation at 5.2%, pensioners on low and fixed incomes are among the most tightly squeezed, and again Age UK states that
“older people have experienced a rate of inflation on average 5% above headline measures and this is, in part, because the proportion of their income spent on food and fuel is higher than for other age groups.”
The harsh reality is that, instead of supporting pensioners, this Government’s actions are making life even tougher— [Interruption.] Right on cue, the Minister starts again the usual orchestrated chorus from Government Members, attacking the previous Government rather than looking at what his Government are doing today.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
On the additional costs of food and fuel, is it not really beholden on the Government to realise that those are the areas where pensioners, in particular, feel the pinch? We are in a situation whereby many pensioners say that it is a matter of either heating or eating, so the Government should adjust not their philosophy but the reality of life to the fact that these inflationary measures are hitting pensioners, who do not have the money or the resources to back up the costs when they come in with the bills that they have to pay.
Cathy Jamieson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many pensioners do not want to admit the financial difficulty that they are in. Often, they try to hide it from their family, friends and local community, so they go behind closed doors and curtains, do not put the heating on for fear of the huge bills that may come in, and choose at times when their money is tight to cut down on nutritious food and other essential items. That is the stark reality for many pensioners living in our communities today, and it is time that the Government realised that they have to take responsibility for their own decisions.
The Government have to take responsibility for their actions and face up to the consequences, so let us take a look at the facts. I am sure that I will get more sedentary comments from Government Members, but it is important to remind people that the UK economy has flatlined over the past year, with just 0.5% growth well before the eurozone crisis, which cannot therefore be entirely to blame for choking off recovery. In the European Union, only Greece, Portugal and Cyprus have grown more slowly than the UK, and the United States has grown more than three times as fast as us over the past 12 months.
The Government’s mistaken decision to raise VAT to 20% in January has hit pensioners hard. Estimates are that it will cost a pensioner couple on average £275 a year, and I return to my earlier point: that may seem like a small amount to some Members; it is not a small amount for someone who is facing the rise in prices, trying to make every penny go that bit further and facing such difficulties every day.
We know that the Government’s policies are hurting ordinary people, because we hear it every day from constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said, so we, like the right hon. Member for Belfast North who moved the motion, believe that the Government should look again at the impact of their polices on winter fuel payments and on VAT, which in combination have hit pensioners hard.
The Government have the opportunity to ease the squeeze on pensioners, and they should take it by temporarily reversing the VAT rise. At the very least, they could do so immediately and put that £275 back into the pockets of pensioners.
When Labour introduced winter fuel payments, it did so as part of a drive to help tackle fuel poverty among pensioners, and I accept that some Government Members genuinely want to see the problem tackled. The payments were specifically designed to give older people the reassurance that they could afford to heat their homes in winter—and do so in a way that would allow them to continue to buy their food and to pay the rest of their bills.
At the time there was, and indeed there has been since, criticism that the winter fuel allowance was not targeted in the way that some anti-poverty organisations might have wished. Some people wanted the allowance to go further, and others wanted different groups of people included, but we know from research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that households receiving the winter fuel payment are almost 14 times more likely to spend the money on fuel than they are if their incomes are increased in other ways. That is quite important, and the IFS specifically stated:
“Households receiving the Winter Fuel Payment spend 41% of it on fuel even though there is no obligation to do so. When the same households receive additional income which is not labelled in any way, they spend just 3% of it on fuel. To put it another way, simply increase the income of a pensioner household by £100 and they will increase their spending on fuel by £3. Label that increase a ‘Winter Fuel Payment’ and £41 will go on fuel.”
Indeed, the IFS went further by stating:
“The winter fuel payment was introduced to encourage older households to spend more on heating in the winter. Remarkably it appears to have had just that effect.”
To be fair to the Government, at least for a moment, they do seem, to be fair—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
“They do seem to be fair.”
Cathy Jamieson
On one or two things, and on this point the Government do seem to have moved on from the days when some people who are now in prominent Government positions thought that winter fuel payments were “gimmicks”. To be fair again to the Pensions Minister, back in May he answered a written parliamentary question by stating:
“The winter fuel payment provides a significant contribution to an older person’s winter fuel costs and provides vital reassurance that people can afford to turn up their heating.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 493W.]
Today, he seemed to suggest that he still agrees with that in principle, and I am glad to hear it, although I disagree with him on whether the amount of money going into pensioners’ pockets has been cut.
The coalition agreement, which has been referred to, states:
“We will protect key benefits for older people such as the winter fuel allowance”.
Most reasonable people reading that statement or hearing those words coming from the mouths of Ministers might reasonably have expected the coalition to have protected all winter fuel payments. They were certainly the words that people heard in the run-up to the election, but as we know the winter fuel payment will be £50 lower this year than it was in each of the last three years for eligible households aged 60 or over, and £100 lower for those aged 80 or over. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 9 million households benefit from the winter fuel payment, so 9 million households will be worse off this winter.
People will no doubt seek to make the usual criticisms of the former Labour Government at this point, but when Labour left office no decision had been taken, and it was absolutely in the Chancellor’s power to continue with the extra payment, as Labour Chancellors had in previous years. It is therefore absolutely wrong for any Government Member to say that the decision was taken by the previous Government; the decision to axe the additional payment was taken by this coalition Government —no one else.
Steve Webb
Leaving aside the fact that the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary was the man who left the note saying, “There’s no money left,” I must ask, if the previous Government planned to keep the winter fuel payment at £250, why did they not set the money aside in their Budget plans?
Cathy Jamieson
The decision was taken year on year, and it would have been entirely open to a new Government —indeed, if a Labour Government had been elected, there would have been the option—to look at the measure year on year, so no matter how many times Ministers raise the issue, they cannot get away from the fact that the very people who decided not to go ahead with the payment are the coalition Government.
I am astonished to hear the Minister seemingly suggest that this Government had to follow everything that the previous, Labour Government did. If that had been the case, we would still have had a future jobs fund, and perhaps youth unemployment would not be rocketing. No one wants to intervene on that point, so perhaps we will hear more from the Under-Secretary in her winding-up speech. Rather than harking back to the past, it is time that this out-of-touch Government came back to reality and dealt with the real-life issues facing today’s pensioners.
Let me give the last word on this to the voice of pensioners. Speaking about the Chancellor’s decision to axe the additional payments, Dot Gibson from the National Pensioners Convention has said:
“It’s a shabby way to treat Britain’s older generation. If we really are all in this together, why is he going to take £100 off the winter fuel allowance for the oldest members of society at a time when fuel bills are rising and winter deaths amongst older people are a national scandal? He should be ashamed of his behaviour”.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on choosing this subject. With winter fast approaching, this is an issue that will clearly be on many of our constituents’ minds. Although it has been unseasonably warm in my part of Scotland, we must realise that the winter is still ahead of us and we face the challenge of yet again trying to heat our homes. I declare an interest to the House. In the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have noted oil and gas industry interests which are relevant to this debate.
As has become apparent in the debate, fuel poverty is made up of a combination of three pillars: the cost of the energy itself, the income of the household, and the quality of the houses that people live in and are trying to heat. All three of those factors need tackling, and attempts have been made to do so over the years. I suspect that one of the mistakes probably made by all of us, but particularly by the previous Government, was relying on the cost of energy as the main platform for tackling fuel poverty in a period when competition brought down energy prices. We did not realise the need to get our housing stock well and truly up to standard to ensure that, when prices went back up, people would be able to afford to heat their homes because they would not need so much energy. The energy efficiency of homes and our housing stock is a crucial factor in building the long-term foundations for tackling the problem once and for all.
In the run-up to this winter, the Government are rightly trying to concentrate on making sure that energy bills are as low as possible by pushing for an end to the complexity. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made clear, many people do not know how to shop around. They are faced with myriad complex tariffs and offers and are lured in to sign up to new contracts and, after that, a rising tariff. One of the ways of improving the markets and ensuring that at least bills are no higher than they should be is to have clearer tariffs and an end to the complexity.
The other problem is that of houses not on the gas grid. It would be interesting to hear, perhaps in the reply to the debate, whether anything can be done in Northern Ireland to extend the gas grid. If we can get more people on to the gas main, it will at least ensure that they have one of the most reasonable fuels for heating their homes in the immediate future.
However, not every house will be on the gas grid and we will have to tackle the problem of those that are not. Consumers of grid heating fuels such as gas and electricity have a market in which Ofgem—the regulator—and the rules consider how vulnerable customers are treated, and vulnerable customers cannot be disconnected in the winter. However, following the Office of Fair Trading inquiry and all the other reports on the off-grid, I am concerned that heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas suppliers do not have the same constraints on their market in terms of how they handle vulnerable customers and their relationship with them.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. He may remember that, in the previous Parliament, the excuse was always that that market was made up of smaller companies. Does he agree that that is no longer so? In many cases, suppliers have a virtual monopoly, and it is high time that the same sort of tariffs were introduced into that market as those that exist in the electricity and gas markets.
Sir Robert Smith
One can certainly buy from a lot of brands, but when one gets behind them and finds out who the beneficial owner is, one learns that it is not necessarily a different company. There is still scope for considering something we pursued when the hon. Gentleman and I were both on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change in the previous Parliament, and that is whether Ofgem should have some kind of locus in relation to off-grid customers as well as on-grid customers. It is certainly worth pursuing with the Secretary of State and Ofgem whether there is any way it can be involved in that market to improve the treatment of vulnerable customers.
I welcome the warm home discount because, obviously, that targets a saving that goes some way to counteract the loss of income. However, we must recognise that the long-term pressures are upward for energy prices, which brings us back to the need to tackle the quality of homes. There is a hope that shale gas may have the potential to assist with energy prices in the medium term, but the reality is that we have to prepare for a world where energy prices are higher. Therefore, in terms of targeting resources, I welcome the cold weather payment being maintained at the higher level because that at least targets those who have the most need most effectively.
The take-up of benefits is crucial and we need to reinforce the campaigns and the different ways of engaging with customers. The data sharing on pensioners between energy companies and the Government is going some way towards trying to identify those vulnerable customers. The energy companies that are doing benefit audits of their customers have shown that such an approach can greatly improve a household’s income. Pensioner take-up of targeted benefits needs to be improved, as does the information. We need to try to get across to people the message that these payments are entitlements, not gifts. People are entitled to these payments and they should not feel in any way inhibited from claiming them, because they have been paid for and they are meant to be claimed. If they were claimed, the problem of fuel poverty would be reduced.
Information is also crucial in trying to get people’s homes up to standard. There is still a lot of reluctance to engage, even when energy efficiency is free. With the upheaval and the uncertainty, people do not have the confidence to let someone into their home to interfere with the fabric of their building. We need to give people more reassurance that the long-term benefits of improving the energy efficiency of their home will give them a stable future when it comes to fuel bills.
Mr David Hamilton
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the take-up is not as good as it could be, but part of the problem is that we do not have a one-front shop. We should have an organisation—for example, one of those dealing with welfare rights such as the citizens advice bureau—through which someone who is looking for benefits can also find out about the other things available to them. How does that square with the cuts that are being made to local government, because that is the other side of the coin? There are substantial cuts. Many of the people who give the advice are not there now and some of those organisations are closing down. I should also declare an interest in this debate because I am over 60 so I qualify, too.
Sir Robert Smith
Yes, it is crucial to ensure that people have access to the information. We also need to ensure that those who have contact with pensioners are aware of it. The health benefits of living in a properly insulated home are very great, but not enough is done through the health service to steer people towards available schemes to help them to heat their homes. When someone presents at a GP’s practice with a health problem that can be exacerbated by a cold home, they should immediately be steered towards information about how to get benefits to improve their home.
I shall highlight one of the frustrations of promoting warm homes week. I went out to help energy efficiency installers. At one semi-detached house, people were drilling a hole in the wall and putting a chain down through the hole in the wall between them and the neighbour. When I asked why, they said, “It’s to make sure the neighbour doesn’t get any insulation,” because the neighbour did not want it. That shows both the resistance to what is inevitably in the best interests of the home and the level of inefficiency. Installers cannot do a whole street because individuals have not got the confidence to share. Obviously, if they are out installing in one house, installing in another house at the same time will greatly reduce the cost of the scheme and increase the take-up. We have to get the information across to people that these schemes are there to help them and that if they make use of them they will have a long-term benefit. The great benefit of improving our housing stock is that as people’s incomes fluctuate and as people move, they will still not fall into fuel poverty.
At a fundamental level, we must get the housing stock sorted out, we must give people the confidence to take up the benefits to which they are entitled, and we must ensure that the energy markets work to maximum efficiency so that even in a time of rising prices we do not pay over the odds for our energy.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
This debate has at least established something, because the Minister has acknowledged, as Hansard will clearly show, that we are talking about cuts—that what is being proposed, and what is actually happening, is a cut for pensioners. I appreciate his having forthrightly acknowledged that, for it is often painted in another fashion or covered up in some way.
It is true that we are living in financially difficult times and that hard choices have to be made. The Government have made a choice to cut pensioners’ winter fuel payment, and they must stand by their choice. We have often listened to the Government hiding behind things that the Opposition were going to do had they remained in power. They must stop doing that and face the fact that they are in government, so they carry the responsibility. What some other Government were going to do is not relevant; what is relevant is that this coalition Government have decided to cut money from the most vulnerable people in our society. The cost of living for the over-65s is increasing, as it has been for the past four years, and they are now faced with a cut. When I listened to the Minister’s speech, I wondered whether there was a prize for the quiz that he was holding, but we have not heard whether he will give some pensioners the prize of a reinstatement of this money.
Let us acknowledge that for many of our constituents in Northern Ireland, gas is not a possibility; they do not have that option. People are facing exorbitant, rocketing heating oil prices, and in many cases throughout the Province they have no alternative. Heating oil prices seem to keep going up. My constituents constantly tell me that it is amazing that just when the cheques for the winter fuel payment are about to come through the letterbox, the oil prices go up. Perhaps a review of this could be undertaken, because it has a serious impact on my constituents, who face great difficulties at this time of the year. I acknowledge that the energy stamps scheme run by some of our councils is of great help to our constituents in enabling them to face the heating bills that come in during the winter months.
Sir Robert Smith
There is an aspect of off-grid that I did not touch on, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is more mileage in it. As the renewable heat initiative comes in, does he agree that converting some off-grid domestic properties to heat pumps, particularly air source heat pumps, could make a difference?
Dr McCrea
With the greatest respect, many of the people who are losing the winter fuel payment—for example, those who are over 80—will not know about the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Let us deal with reality, because these are the people who are going to suffer as a result of the coalition Government’s proposal.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on proposing this debate, and I presume that there will be a Division of some kind so that we can show our views. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the saddest part of this cut, made for the sake of such a minimal amount of money, no matter what the economic position, is that it is the people over 80 who are really going to suffer?
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
When I looked at today’s Daily Mail, I saw that the editor’s comment says—[Hon. Members: “Daily Mail?”] With the greatest respect, let me deal with the issue. It says that at a time when our people are enduring cuts at home, including to the winter fuel payment, UK taxpayers are ploughing an extra £300 million into an organisation such as Europe, with increases of “only” 2%. The Minister asked where the money would come from; I think we have identified where some of it could come from. Instead of paying it to Europe, we could be paying it to our elderly people—those over 80 years of age who are facing a choice between eating and heating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned the money wasted on the referendum on the voting system, which was held to placate the minor party in the coalition. That money could have been spent to assist the elderly. It ill behoves those in the coalition to ask where the money would come from to deal with this situation, as they can certainly find it for others rather than the citizens of the United Kingdom.
These past three years have been devastating for the fuel poor within our society. Last winter in Northern Ireland, we faced the coldest December for over 100 years, with energy prices continuing to escalate, and we are entering a situation where the choice between heating and eating is a sad reality for many of our elderly constituents. In my own constituency of South Antrim, it has been estimated that as many as 42.4% of the population are living in fuel poverty, at least half of whom are pensioner householders. That is a significant figure and a worrying statistic.
Behind the statistics are human beings—elderly people within our society—who are suffering. Research carried out by Help the Aged in 2006 suggested that in winter many older people cope with the cold by staying in bed longer or wearing outdoor clothes indoors. The charity’s opinion that it is unacceptable in this day and age that anyone should have to resort to such measures in order to minimise heating bills will surely find support across this House. In its impact report in 2006, it stated:
“Winter is a difficult time for many older people. The cold, dark winter months leave many confined to their homes and for too many older people, those homes are cold, damp and inhospitable. Each year, older people living on inadequate incomes regard the approach of winter with dread”.
This year, with the decrease in their winter fuel payment, will certainly be no exception.
Living in a cold, damp home can have devastating effects on the health and social well-being of the elderly, rendering them isolated and susceptible to what should be avoidable illnesses such as asthma and stroke. Between 2002 and 2009, the number of winter deaths in Northern Ireland increased by 366%, and they are now at the highest level in western Europe. Experts agree that one of the root causes of this shocking statistic is fuel poverty.
When the then Government first introduced the winter fuel payment in the winter of 1997-98, they threw a vital and welcome lifeline to many thousands of pensioners across the United Kingdom. The decision to cut the winter fuel payment this year is shocking and people have reacted bitterly to the news. Only last month, a group of older people from Age Sector Platform in Northern Ireland travelled to Westminster to present the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), with a petition containing the signatures of almost 15,000 people who were united in opposition to the cut to the winter fuel payment this year. The Age Sector Platform campaign continues to receive support as each day passes, not only from elderly people but from younger people who are genuinely concerned about their parents and grandparents who had depended on this additional and welcome source of income. Never before has a lobby issue attracted such a high level of support in such a short space of time.
Members will be interested to know that in June, a Pensioners’ Parliament was held in Northern Ireland for the first time. There was overwhelming support for a motion calling on the Government to reverse their decision to cut the winter fuel payment this year and to look at ways of linking future payments to energy prices. A survey conducted in the run-up to the Pensioners’ Parliament also emphasised the need for action in this area. It showed that three out of four older people identified keeping warm in winter as a worry, making it the No. 1 concern. As politicians, we cannot fail to recognise that a strong message is being sent to us and to this House.
The proportion of homes in fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is three times greater than that in England. Households in Northern Ireland spend 43% more on energy than the UK average. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland are 29% higher than in January 2008 and 11% higher than in the rest of the UK. The price of home heating oil increased by more than 150% between 2003 and 2010, with 23% of that increase occurring in just the last year.
It is inconceivable that once again this winter our elderly will have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. The Government, through their current course of action, are condemning many pensioners in my constituency to a winter of hardship and suffering. As the National Energy Action group has said:
“Fuel Poverty is killing those most vulnerable in our society annually.”
It goes on to say that it is a basic essential that
“all householders in Northern Ireland have access to affordable warmth.”
Unfortunately, without urgent action from the Government on this matter, that entitlement will be denied to many.
I will finish because I realise that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I will leave Members with a direct quotation from a lady known simply as Mrs P, who contributed to the Help the Aged impact report:
“When I get up, because I can’t sleep and I come down, I put an old quilt round me, and I sit here for as long as I can, reading, until I get absolutely frozen. Then I have to put the fire on and I think to myself ‘Look at me wasting all this fuel.’”
Let us not waste a moment longer. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the appropriate action is taken to prevent people such as Mrs P from falling even deeper into fuel poverty.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). The speeches of Members on the Opposition Benches have been characterised by a great passion on behalf of their constituents about the issue of fuel poverty. Everybody in this House is concerned about that issue and we have all had to deal with constituents who are finding life a struggle. The opportunity to debate our concern for the vulnerable this afternoon is an example of Parliament at its best, because such issues are why we are all in this place and why we attempt to do our best. It is important that Government Members think about what we are doing for pensioners and how far we are supporting them in dealing with the ever-increasing burden of fuel prices.
I assure Members of the Opposition parties that if the measures that the Government are putting in place were less than adequate, I would be the first in line to criticise them. However, if we look just through the prism of the winter fuel payment, we do not see the whole story. We need to look at the wider support that we are giving to pensioners through pension reform and other benefits.
Lady Hermon
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so early in her speech. She has conveyed the impression that coalition Members are very concerned, as they ought to be, about this serious issue that affects all parts of the United Kingdom. Why, therefore, are there so few Members on the Government Benches this evening? It is really embarrassing.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I could also point to the lack of Members on the Labour Benches, but this is not an occasion to engage in party politics. We need to turn our attention to debating the substance of the issue.
I am satisfied that what the Government are putting in place is appropriate to support our pensioners. As I said, we need to consider the wider support that we are giving pensioners to deal with fuel bills, the other benefits that we are giving pensioners and the pension reforms. We also need to consider the quality of the housing stock, which has been raised a number of times in this debate. We need to think about what can be done to reduce bills, because then we would not have to give so much support to cover energy prices. At the moment, a lot of energy is used to heat the air above people’s houses.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
No one on the Opposition Benches would argue with the point that we need to do more to make homes more energy efficient. The difficulty is that we are in the worst recession for decades, energy costs are going through the roof—literally when homes are not properly insulated—and pensioner incomes have decreased in real terms. We are simply saying that this is the wrong time to make such a cut.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the point about the quality of housing stock. There is a lot of Government support for people to invest in such improvements. The difficult is in take-up. He focuses on the winter fuel payment and identifies it as a cut. Instead of having a broad-brush, one-off payment that is available to everyone, we must tackle the root causes of fuel poverty and identify the households that will benefit the most from such help.
Sarah Newton
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the solutions can be found locally in our communities? For example, Community Energy Plus is working with Cornwall council to use the Government incentives to tackle fuel poverty by offering free insulation to vulnerable households living in fuel poverty in Cornwall right now, this winter. The critical role that we can play as MPs is to work in partnership with organisations in our communities to ensure that people know about and take up the good schemes that are available.
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend makes a constructive point, which goes to the heart of the point that the Minister made earlier about the lack of take-up, particularly of means-tested benefits. That happens for a host of reasons, including that they are too difficult to take up, that people are too proud, and the lack of awareness among pensioners about the support that they can get to improve the quality of their housing. That is because many of the schemes are nationally designed and rolled out, and the information is not readily available. We can do a lot to push people in the right direction so that they can find help, such as through the project that my hon. Friend mentioned. All Members can play a constructive, championing role, because we are all community leaders. We need to pay our part in pointing pensioners towards the sources of help that they can access to tackle this growing problem.
Kate Hoey
The hon. Lady is right that we all have a responsibility to make people aware of such things. However, if she were an 89-year-old lady living on her own on a tiny pension, would she really think it her priority to have the huge disruption of someone doing all that work in her house? What she would actually want would be the money that she had last year, so that she could increase her use of electricity over the coming winter.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I think what a lady in that situation wants is to be warm, and we can apply any number of tools to ensure that she is. Part of that is making money available through the winter fuel payment and pension credit, and part of it is improving the quality of our housing stock. That is the point—it is not simply about the winter fuel payment.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her time.
The hon. Lady has indicated that there are plenty of areas of support for pensioners that should be used. However, when we start to dig into them and explore them, we realise that they are actually quite limited. For example, someone who applies to the boiler replacement scheme will get help only if they are in receipt of rate relief. The people who are in the most need, after means-testing, are those who receive housing benefit, but they are excluded from the scheme. There is therefore a double whammy—even if those people explore and try to exploit the assistance that exists, it is not available to them.
Jackie Doyle-Price
There are a number of schemes that are designed to provide such support, and I suspect that there are alternative schemes for people who claim housing benefit. Also, who is responsible for meeting the cost of such work depends on the nature of the landlord.
I should like to highlight some of the things that the Government have done to alleviate fuel poverty for pensioners. We have heard reference to the warm home discount, which will enable pensioners to have a mandatory rebate on their electricity bills. The Government have also permanently increased the cold weather payments, and it is very important to make that point when we consider where support is being directed. We can have the universal benefit of the winter fuel payments, and to some extent I am attracted to that, because we have poor levels of pension credit take-up. However, it is important that we strike a balance, because we can all point out people who are entitled to that benefit and perhaps do not need it. Focusing more support on cold weather payments, which go to pensioners who claim means-tested benefit, is entirely appropriate.
The motion concentrates on the cut in the winter fuel payments. The Minister said that the level that was previously budgeted for was only a temporary increase. Members have said that we could have decided to stick with that increase, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) had a nice try when she said, “Look, this is a cut, it’s up to you what to do.” However, as I said, it is important to see the matter in the round and see what we have done to focus additional support on those who need it most, through cold weather payments.
Members have mentioned the issue of housing stock, and I encourage the Government to consider what more can be done to highlight the schemes that exist and encourage more people to take up support to improve the quality of housing. Ultimately, we are not going to tackle the issues of fuel poverty and ever-increasing bills unless we really focus on delivering energy efficiency in all our homes. We need to do that not just for pensioners but for low-income households in general.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
With the green deal coming down the track, which could have a huge impact on heating bills right across the country, does my hon. Friend think the Government could learn lessons about how it should be administered, particularly for pensioners? There is a chance that the scheme could be wrapped up in red tape. We have heard about how restrictive various other schemes can be for the elderly. Cannot the Government learn lessons about how the green deal can be delivered for elderly people?
Jackie Doyle-Price
It is always a challenge for the Government and the public sector to deliver such schemes in a user-friendly way that makes them available to people and does not dissuade them. We need to continue our principle of using all organisations in society and making them approachable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) mentioned, we need to use voluntary groups and the other groups that are closest to pensioners, to encourage them to engage. We can see elements of that starting already in welfare reform. The Government are looking to local authorities to be stronger delivery partners, because they tend to be the organisations with which pensioners have the closest day-to-day contact. We need to think carefully about making support people-friendly and easy to access.
I wish to set the winter fuel payment against the broader context of what the Government are doing for pensioners. They have confirmed that they will be keeping other benefits, such as free TV licences, prescriptions and eye tests, and they have set aside £650 million to help local authorities freeze council tax. We should all recognise that council tax has been a real problem and has contributed to pensioners’ financial difficulties. As we know, if local authorities can limit their budget increases to 2.5%, the Government will meet the cost of the freeze. In recent years the average increase in council tax has been quite significant, and it has been a pernicious bill for many households.
I particularly wish to congratulate the Government on restoring the earnings link to pensions and introducing the triple lock to guarantee an increase in the basic state pension of the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. That measure will go further than any other in addressing pensioner poverty. It will give pensioners a firm financial foundation from the state and guarantee a more generous state pension. That is the essential goal of what we are trying to do—we want to ensure that everyone is guaranteed an income that will prevent them from being in poverty.
Sarah Newton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about improvements and annual increases in the state pension. Does she agree that some of our reforms to the NHS will also have a hugely beneficial effect on older people? Integrating social care with the NHS and giving the health and wellbeing boards a key health outcome of reducing fuel poverty represents a more holistic approach. We are considering pensioners, their families and their lifestyle in the round, and we are supporting them.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The broader point is that many of the issues that face us in later life have been parked for too long. I congratulate the Government on gripping them, and in the ongoing debate we will have to ensure that we have good provision for people in their later years. I believe that will occupy the House’s attention for quite some time, because we cannot afford to get it wrong. We all need to get behind the Government and help to tackle the matter.
Dr McCrea
I accept all the hon. Lady’s points, but this is not an either/or situation. Surely the winter fuel payments complement what she has described. As the Minister has acknowledged today, the Government are proposing cuts. Many of our pensioners are asset-rich but income-poor, and they fall into the means-testing trap. The winter fuel payment is one way to help them.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I was just about to come on to means-testing, because that is where problems have arisen. I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that many pensioners are asset-rich and cash-poor, and that is why they find it difficult to make ends meet and pay all their bills. However, the biggest problem with pension credit and the move to means-tested benefits is that a number of people are not claiming what they are entitled to, for a number of reasons. It is partly because of the complexity of the system, but probably one of the biggest reasons is pride. Those of us who were familiar with my grandparents’ generation know that they really did not want to ask for what they were entitled to. We have tried to strike a balance between universal payment and means-testing, to direct support to those who need it. Ultimately, that will work only if we make it easier, and less of a stigma, for people to claim what they are entitled to.
I am quite confident that we have got the balance right, but I am not confident that we are doing enough to encourage people to make claims. The National Audit Office has pointed out that of the one third of people who are entitled to pension credit who do not claim it, many are in the poorest households. All of us could do our bit by highlighting the fact that support is available to people and encouraging them to claim it if they are entitled to it.
We want to ensure that older people receive the help to which they are entitled, and we need to satisfy ourselves that we are putting enough measures in place to support our pensioners. I am grateful to Democratic Unionist party Members for initiating this debate, which has given us the opportunity to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough, and I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing in this area.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I just say to hon. Members that we have four more Back Benchers to get in, and we are up against time—we have just under an hour left.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is important to say at the start that DUP Members support the measures that coalition Members have talked about, including insulating walls and new windows, but we need to talk about now. We are coming into the winter, and we need to talk about winter fuel payments. Those other measures are good in their place, and eventually—hopefully—they will be implemented in many of our older buildings in the UK, but that is not happening now. We need to talk about the here and now of winter fuel payments.
I begin by quoting a Government Minister speaking in this Chamber a little earlier this year:
“I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people’s concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing”.—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1155-1156.]
That was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speaking about forestry. Would it not be an extraordinary state of affairs if a member of Her Majesty’s Government could come to the House to offer an apology, concede that the Government have got it wrong, say that they had listened to the people and announce a change of direction on forests, but another member of the Government says that there could be no such apology, announcement or about-turn when it comes to our elderly, who are some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society?
That is the distasteful core of the debate, and it is why the DUP moved this motion today. Some hon. Members might feel that using words such as “distasteful” is taking things a bit far, but let me quote from the independent financial advice website, moneysavingexpert.com. On 24 March 2011, it reported that the Chancellor had “secretly” cut the allowance. In an article published on 19 October 2011, fullfact.org considered the conflicting arguments between the political parties and referenced a recent piece jointly written by the Prime Minister on moneysavingexpert.com on 17 October. The fullfact.org article concluded by saying that despite questions on how long the payment was intended for,
“there seems to be no question that the payments are being reduced.”
My colleagues mentioned this earlier, but it perhaps needs to be mentioned again. The Minister asked, “Where does this extra money come from?” In that respect, we need to emphasise the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been poured into Europe—in Northern Ireland, we would say that it is disappearing like snow off a ditch. We see no benefit from the money, but our old and other members of society in the UK are suffering greatly for it. The Government need to re-look at the money that they are pouring into Europe while our old and infirm are suffering at home.
According to uSwitch.com, the price comparison website, the position for many in the UK is that since November last year, energy suppliers have increased their prices by £224, or 21%, on average. As a result, the average household energy bill has rocketed from £1,069 to £1,293 a year. In just over five years, household energy bills have rocketed by £633, or 96%, from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,293 a year today, following recent increases.
The number of those in fuel poverty has spiralled, with 6.9 million, or 27%, of households now affected. The worst affected groups are single working parents, pensioners or couples living off one income. Almost nine in 10 households—89%—will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills. As a result, potentially 23 million households will be switching off or turning down this winter, 4 million—or 16%—more than last year.
Eighty-seven per cent. of people are worried about the cost of their energy bills as they head towards the winter months, 26% more than last year. Fifty-five per cent. of people went without heating at some point last winter to keep energy costs down. That looks set to rise. The hefty 21%, or £224, hike in the last year means that energy costs are the top household worry for consumers—90% of households are worried about energy costs, whereas 42% of households are worried about mortgage payments and 77% are worried about the rising cost of food.
The disposable income of more than nine in 10 households —93%—has been hit by the rising cost of energy. Thirty-seven per cent. have seen a dramatic reduction in their disposable income, while 19% no longer have disposable income. More than one in three households—37%—are in bill debt and are using credit to cover their day-to-day household bills. Thirty-six per cent. owe more than £1,000 and more than one in 10 households—14%—owe more than £3,000.
If ever a year were exactly the worst time to introduce such a cut, it is this one. If ever there were a year when introducing such a cut was precisely the last thing that the Government ought to do, it is this one.
This debate was introduced by the DUP, but it is not simply about Northern Ireland; it is rightly about the entire UK. However, alongside the issues that I raised previously, I should like to focus on Northern Ireland. According to Age Sector Platform—other right hon. and hon. Members have stated this, but it needs to be stated again—last winter, Northern Ireland faced the coldest December for more than 100 years. It was a horrific time for the elderly. According to figures that I have been given, during the winter of 2009-10, 756 people aged 65-plus died of cold-related illnesses in Northern Ireland.
With the additional costs, the price hikes, the increased bill debt, the reduced disposable income and the increased rationing of warmth, does any right hon. or hon. Member really suppose that we will not witness more vulnerable people dying needlessly this year? Does anyone suppose that the planned cut will reduce the number of deaths? If the Government can come to the Chamber, offer an apology, claim to have listened to the views of the public and announce a U-turn on forests, why can they not do likewise for the old, the frail and the most vulnerable in our society?
There are many men and women fighting for this country in Afghanistan, or who fought in Iraq and Libya, who have parents at home who are vulnerable and getting it hard. They are fighting for their country while this coalition has taken away the very money that could help to heat their parents’ homes. That decision is unacceptable and needs to be reversed. If the Government can do it for forests, surely to goodness they can do it for the most vulnerable in our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Three people have indicated that they wish to speak, and the wind-ups start at 7.18 pm. If they can divide the time among themselves, everybody will get in.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I commend him and his colleagues on bringing the motion to the House. In particular, I commend the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on the cogent and assertive way in which he moved the motion and anticipated many of the Government’s arguments.
The motion is timely and focused. Contrary to much of the debate, which has ranged far and wide along the full dimensions of fuel poverty, the structural condition of the housing stock, fuel prices and all those vagaries, the motion is focused on something under the control of the House and the Government: the decision on the winter fuel payments. We are clear that all those issues need to be addressed, and the measures taken by the previous and present Governments are to be encouraged, as too are other more far-reaching measures, but given the rampant rise in energy costs for older people and all the other pressures on their incomes, we cannot countenance complacency about the cut to winter fuel payments.
The decision on winter fuel payments represents a clear and present cut imposed by this Government. The Minister tried to argue first that it was not a cut, then that it was a Labour planned cut, but the fact is this: it is a clear and present cut for pensioner households already facing other pressures and difficulties. It is a sleight of hand for people to suggest, “Well, the Government were committed to doing what the previous Government did”, because really they said, “No, we’re only committed to doing what we think the previous Government planned, not what they did.”
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that we have to talk to and listen to our pensioners. I have, and every single one has told me that the cut is an issue for them, and every single one is clear that for three years they received payments at a certain level, but that this year they will not get them at that level. That is a cut, and it is a cut from this Government.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is at a time when they need it most?
Mark Durkan
Yes, of course it is at a time when they need it most, and it is not only the time of year when they need it most but the time in the economic cycle—with all the difficulties that people are facing.
We have heard some duplicitous arguments from Government Members. On the one hand many people talk about the difficulties with means-tested benefits and with supporting pensioners through pension credits, but on the other hand we have heard criticisms of the fuel payment and the fact that it is not means-tested or discriminatory. We have heard contradictory arguments.
Indeed, the Minister earlier argued against the whole scheme, structure and logic of winter fuel payments. He actually argued against the allowance altogether and said that better, more discriminating interventions were available to protect people against fuel poverty and to support more deserving pensioners. In the light of his logic, I wonder whether the Government plan fundamentally to review or redesign the fuel payment.
The previous Government introduced the single annual payment in 1998, but the first time I heard it advocated was in 1988, when my predecessor, John Hume, commended to the then social security Minister, John Major, the introduction of an annual thermal allowance to overcome many of the difficulties with the cold weather payments, their inadequacy and the poor and inconsistent triggering system. Thankfully, we got something similar with the winter fuel payment in 1998.
Over the years, the amount of money committed to the payment has changed and top-ups have been introduced. Pensioners have come to see those top-ups as a given, and considering what the Prime Minister said going into the election, they had every right to expect them to remain a given. The motion tabled by my compatriots in the Democratic Unionist party gives the House the opportunity to signal to the Government that that is what we want and what pensioners expect.
Many valid arguments have been made about how to tackle fuel poverty—improving energy efficiency, for example. Although some of those measures can be introduced in Northern Ireland at the devolved level, others need wider intervention from here. Those could include more up-front investment in energy efficiency retrofit schemes or VAT concessions, not least to stimulate work in the hard-pressed construction sector, which is not building new houses. There is an awful lot of work that people with construction skills could do to retrofit and improve existing houses, and there are many things that young people who want to get construction skills could do on such schemes. The Government need to think more widely about other measures to tackle fuel poverty, but they should not use the existence of other interventions as an excuse to justify this unjustified cut.
I shall not rehearse the statistics on the levels of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland that my colleagues have mentioned because other Members want to speak, and nor shall I rehearse the number of winter deaths from fuel poverty either in the UK at large or in Northern Ireland. I shall only make the point that those deaths are avoidable and that we need to take what steps we can to avoid them. This cut is avoidable.
The Minister asked, “Where else can the money come from?” I do not necessarily agree with some of the suggestions from right hon. and hon. colleagues, although I am glad that the Government moved on from some of the vanity projects—for example, the NHS IT scheme. Money could also be saved on Trident.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned mortality. As he knows, I have family in Armagh, where the climate can be pretty tough, but it can be even colder and more difficult in Scandinavia, where the figures for hypothermia are much lower than ours. Is that not a point that we should bear in mind?
Mark Durkan
Yes, it is. That raises questions about investment in quality housing stock and the levels of social support, guarantees and interventions available in Scandinavian countries, and it is why we need to follow the precise focus of the motion, which relates specifically to the winter fuel payment.
I attended the Northern Ireland Pensioners’ Parliament to which hon. Members have referred. It took place in the summer—in June—yet the single strongest issue coming through concerned the winter fuel payment. Yes, people were aware of the changes and the pensions triple lock, but they did not buy it and obviously resented the sleight of hand, with the change in indexation and so on. What they focused on was the direct cut facing them. That is why so many people have campaigned on it, and not just in Northern Ireland.
As the Government look to what they can do to help shelter people from the effects of recession and face the rampant pressures on household costs, I hope that they will reinstate the top-up in winter fuel payments to support pensioners. When pensioners hear the question, “Where will the money come from?”, they say, as some pensioners said at the Pensioners’ Parliament, “When this quantitative easing happens”—supposedly so that money gets out there into the economy—“why is the money given to the banks?” When that money goes into the banks, does it get out there into the economy? Those pensioners make the sensible point—this is one thing we do know—that when we give money to pensioners, it will be spent. It will not stay in those households; it will be spent, in local shops and so on, and go usefully and legitimately into the economy. If there is another phase of quantitative easing and more money is made available to go into the economy, perhaps it should go via pensioners. Then we would all share in the benefits and, in particular, pensioners would be sheltered from the cold.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this House on behalf of the elderly and those in need, and to address the issue of the winter fuel payment.
I read a statement the other day that said:
“The world is getting older. The UN has called the current global ageing trend a situation ‘without parallel in the history of humanity.’ Here in Northern Ireland, our very own society is ageing…An ageing demographic like this carries significant consequences for the fabric of our community. It changes how we plan the way we live; education systems, health and social care, work life, family life. It affects older people now and in the future.”
I am aware of the clear demographic changes in my constituency of Strangford, to which many people move to retire—it is a beautiful place to visit at most times, but it is also a nice place to retire—and where the issue of winter fuel payments comes up over and over again. It comes up because—let us be clear about this—winter fuel payments are not a luxury, but something that goes to pay for fuel, which, for most elderly people in my constituency, means oil. Therefore, the cost is greater than anywhere else. It is no exaggeration to say that literally hundreds of my constituents have spoken to my offices about this issue, and it is clear what they are telling me: winter fuel payments are critical for them to get through the winter.
Age NI has a vision for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom:
“To create a world in which older people flourish,”
and:
“To enhance and improve the lives of older people”.
Those are the words of Age NI, but they should apply everywhere in the United Kingdom, and be taken on board by all the elected representatives in this place as well.
Age NI has three themes—health and social care; poverty; and equality and human rights—but this evening we are focusing on poverty. Poverty affects health and social care, and winter fuel payments and poverty affect equality and human rights as well. Although there are many ways of helping—my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) spoke earlier about the pension credit, and the Minister responded in an intervention—we need a way of speeding the system up. The system needs a sense of urgency; I cite the number of times that I have to phone through to the pension credit system to ask for something to be done only for me to have to return to the problem a week later or perhaps the week after that. The system also needs less bureaucracy and paperwork.
The autumn spending review is an opportunity to put older people at the heart of Government policy and to plan for an ageing population. Northern Ireland has some 300,000 people of retirement age, who make up 17% of the population, and the trend is upward. Unfortunately, the figure will be 24% or 25% in a few years. The largest increase will be in what is sometimes referred to as the “older old”. It is not an “Irishism” to say that: it refers to those who are 80-plus, who feel the pain of winter more than most. Other Members have underlined that point today, stressing the importance of all those who fit into the pension bracket, but especially those who are 80-plus, of whom it is estimated that there will be some 130,000 in a short period of time. Again, that is a concern.
Two fifths of single pensioners and one fifth of pensioner couples have no income other than their retirement pension and state benefits. Whenever we put the issue in perspective, we see that the winter fuel payment means a whole lot to those people. Some 44% of my constituents are in fuel poverty. By the way, the same proportion of those entitled to draw the pension credit—44%—are not claiming it. When the Minister responds, I will be keen to hear her ideas about how we can ensure that they apply. One of the figures underlining this issue that came up in research is that average weekly unclaimed benefits are estimated at between £1.2 million and £2.3 million, which is a vast amount of money. It is important that we address those issues.
Some 23% of older people across certain parts of Northern Ireland are living in poverty, whereas the figure is 16% in the UK. The Minister referred to how we gauge the extra money in the winter fuel payment to reflect the temperature. I made the point in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year that I drove from Greyabbey to Newtownards in my constituency, speaking to people along the way, and found different temperatures all the way up the road. Obviously the temperature is lower closer to the coast, but in certain parts of Ards it was below zero, while over in Ballygowan and Comber it was minus 3º or 4º. That is an illustration of how the temperature can vary within a 50 to 60-mile radius.
Why is it crucial that the winter fuel payment is made? Because a failure to do so will mean more referrals to the health service, with elderly care accounting for 21% of all the programme of care expenditure. I will not go into all the figures that others have mentioned, but I will make this point. It is important to make a “pre-emptive strike” when it comes to health, particularly through the winter fuel payment, which plays a clear role. For every death from cold, there are eight hospital admissions and 100-plus visits to GPs and health centres. When we add that to the figures, we know what we have to do about the winter fuel payment—it helps to avoid lots of those issues, too.
Elderly care expenditure per head for Northern Ireland is £2,086, while in Scotland it is £2,313 and in Wales it is £2,109. I would also like to make an important point—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made this point too—about Alzheimer’s and dementia. In some 26 years as an elected representative, I can never recall a time when so many people had dementia or Alzheimer’s. We therefore need to enable our senior citizens to enjoy a level of health that will not cost more later on. The winter fuel payment makes that contribution. The Government have stated that they will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension—that was indicated earlier. The income-poverty figures show that 23% of older people live in poverty, while the figure is 16% for the UK. Some 15% of people in Northern Ireland live in severe poverty—the figure is 9% in the UK, up 3% in the last year—while 30% of single women over 75 live in poverty, and 42% of those homes are condemned.
The winter fuel allowance is the biggest topic in my three advice centres. For those who qualify, the situation is simple. The price of oil has increased—indeed, it has never been as high. If the Government have any intention of reducing the winter fuel payment, balancing the books will not happen. Many OAPs have no income other than the state pension, as I said earlier. This was an issue last winter; it was an issue for me at the parliamentary elections a year and a half ago; it was an issue at the Northern Ireland Assembly elections back in May; and it is an even more critical issue today. I urge hon. Members to support our proposal.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Mr Weir, who is to resume his seat no later than 18 minutes past 7.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my friends in the Democratic Unionist party on bringing forward this important debate. Fuel poverty is an important issue for all of us, and it is worth noting that in Scotland 770,000 homes are in fuel poverty and that, for every 5% rise in energy prices, a further 46,000 go into fuel poverty. Clearly, those, such as pensioners, who are on fixed incomes are much more likely to be affected by these escalating prices.
In an e-mail prior to the debate, the National Pensioners Convention and Greenpeace made the point that the winter fuel payment used to cover one third of a dual fuel energy bill, but it now covers less than one fifth. That shows how much pensioners are suffering. They also make the point, since the Minister raised the issue of cost, that the impact of cold housing on people’s health already costs the NHS more than £850 million a year, while restoring the winter fuel allowance would cost only £695 million. It is thus questionable whether there is much of a saving in what the Government are doing. The rises in energy prices cannot be looked at in isolation because just as they rising, so is the cost of road fuel, food and other essentials. Clearly, those, such as pensioners, on fixed incomes are the most affected.
In June this year, I received a written answer from the Secretary of State to a question on energy prices and inflation, which showed that in four out of the last five years, the rise in domestic energy prices—whether we use the retail prices index, the consumer prices index or whatever measure—had outstripped the rate of inflation. That was before the latest round of price hikes. The Government’s usual mantra of energy efficiency and switching simply does not wash with pensioners who are struggling to pay their bills. The amount that most people can save from switching is not going to make a significant difference to these bills. That is especially true for the poorest pensioners. To get a better deal on energy bills by switching, they have to move to a direct debit tariff, and many of the poorest pensioners do not have bank accounts or simply like to juggle their bills in the month and do not want to see money coming out of their account on a regular day in the month.
I very much agree that we should insulate our houses and take more measures, but that is a long-term project. What is needed now is relief for our pensioners from ever-escalating bills. In discussing the situation in Northern Ireland, the Minister made it clear that the overall effect of increasing the cold weather payment as against reducing the winter fuel allowance amounted to a cut in the total sums going to pensioners. Frankly, that is irresponsible at a time when prices are escalating.
It is interesting to note the tendency of some Government Members to question whether there should be a universal winter fuel allowance at all, but I would remind them that in the last Parliament they argued against means-testing for pension credit—correctly, in my view—on the grounds that many pensioners would, through pride, not claim means-tested benefit. The same applies here, and I think the Minister’s figures on the trial project of direct payment of pension credit clearly demonstrate that there needs to be universality in order to get through to pensioners.
Let me mention one group of special problems for which I suggest there might be cost-free or at least a very low-cost partial solution. It applies to those who are off the gas grid who rely on home fuel oil for their heating—a problem in Northern Ireland and in large areas of Scotland. These people do not get the special tariffs available for those on the grid and, in many of these areas, extending the gas grid is simply not a practical proposition because of the geography of the area. Even worse, in winter time, these people cannot even be sure of the price of their fuel during the time between ordering and delivering, since in many cases a company will not give them a price at the time of ordering—the price was certainly rising high last winter.
I have previously raised the possibility of allowing these people to receive their winter fuel allowance earlier in the year, which would allow them to fill up their tanks when demand and prices might well be lower. It is not an absolute solution, but it might help in some way. I have raised this with energy Ministers before and I was told that they would consider matters, but nothing seems to have been done. We need to look at solutions like this to alleviate a very serious situation.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the three pillars, and the Minister rightly said that many of these issues were devolved. That is true, but at least two of these pillars—energy prices and the money that comes through benefits—are not devolved matters. The devolved Parliaments and Assemblies thus have a problem in dealing with fuel poverty.
From the outset, the Scottish Parliament has been inventive in tackling these issues. All parties were involved in the central heating scheme in the first instance, and now it has moved on. The current Scottish Government’s energy assistance package, which is worth £33 million, has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce their energy bills. One in six Scottish homes have been visited for a home energy check, which also looks at the benefits side. We all agree that something needs to be done about this, and almost 18,000 installations have been made.
The package was originally targeted at pensioners, but has since been extended to help other vulnerable people in these very difficult times and, in addition to helping pensioners, the scheme has been extended to include the disabled, families with young or disabled children, those with severe disabilities and the terminally ill—and it is to be extended to include those on carers allowance, which could benefit up to another 7,000 households. Next year, the £50 million warm home fund will also begin operation to give additional help to the fuel poor. None of these programmes is cheap; none will ever be cheap. If we go down the road of looking only at energy efficiency, however, we will not tackle the immediate problem. It will take many years before all our homes are energy efficient; the cost of doing it is enormous. Although it is a good thing in the long term, we must also deal in the short term with the immediate problem of getting our pensioners through this coming winter.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At the outset, let me thank all Members who have attended and contributed to the debate. My hon. Friends have agreed with most things, but there have been disagreements on some other issues. That, of course, is the mark of a healthy democracy. We appreciate the contributions of all Members to the debate.
On Friday this week, my constituent Bill Carson will lead 190 pensioners up the hill at Stormont into the Senate chamber for the second meeting of the Pensioners’ Parliament. It has been a very important Parliament meeting in Northern Ireland, which represents—across all constituencies and across the entire community—the feelings of pensioners and people in the aged sector who have issues to raise with the Government. They will debate the report published in June this year, which deals with all the matters that affect pensioners in Northern Ireland. It is a detailed report and lying behind it is a series of surveys carried out across all constituencies asking thousands of pensioners what issues affected them most and what key matters drove their lives today.
Consistently throughout this report, the pensioners came back to one thing, and one thing only—keeping warm this winter. Indeed, the response was significant. In the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency 83.6% of respondents said that the only thing and key thing they were worried about—their No. 1 priority—was keeping warm in winter and energy prices. In Belfast, it was the same: keeping warm in winter and energy prices were the main concern. In my own constituency of North Antrim, it was the same, as it was in Armagh, County Londonderry, County Tyrone and County Down. Right across Northern Ireland, the response was the same.
Nowhere is an island in political terms. The reality is that when a message is as consistent as that and comes back like a tsunami, a response must be made. This House has to face the gauntlet that has been thrown down. The Government must answer the question of what they are prepared to do when pensioners from all across the United Kingdom as well as Northern Ireland say that the issue affecting them most is the fact that they want to stay warm this winter. One of the easiest ways for the Government to help them to stay warm and assist them is through the winter fuel allowance.
As some people might say colloquially, “It’s a no brainer”—and it really is a no brainer. I hope that the Government are listening. We are not after argy-bargy with the Government—we can do argy-bargy with them and we have done it with them and other Governments in the past—because that is not what this issue is about. I believe that Members in all parts of the House care passionately about the needs of the elderly, so let us do something about that: let us address the issues simply and straightforwardly.
The average cost per household of heating oil and electricity in Northern Ireland this year will be £2,114. It is higher in Northern Ireland because more people there have to use heating oil. There is no way around that. All the other mechanisms—improving home efficiency, housing standards and so forth—are fine and dandy, and we will get there one day, but the fact remains that in rural areas 82% of people today rely on heating oil for their homes. The Government have a responsibility to address those people’s needs, and the winter fuel allowance provides them with the easiest, fairest and most consistent way of doing so.
It should be emphasised that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said in his opening speech, this is a life and death issue. We can skirt around it and play about with it, but actions have consequences, and the actions that will be taken by those on either side of the House tonight will have their own consequences. I put it to Members that if they support the motion to which my right hon. Friend spoke so ably, they will save lives. When we cut out all the baloney and party politics, the bottom line is simple: lives will be saved if we keep this allowance. Whose side are we on? Are we going to save lives, or is there the potential for our actions tonight, and the actions of others in this place, to lead to the loss of more elderly lives?
I want to see energy efficiency in our homes, but, as has been pointed out by John Hills of the interim fuel poverty review group, those on low incomes cannot afford the investment that is required to make their homes energy-efficient. Even when the other available benefits are marshalled, it will take some time for us to get energy-efficient homes. I do not want to get sidetracked into all the other poverty issues, but those on low incomes face a triple whammy: the cut in the payments that we are discussing, the hike in energy costs, and the need for their energy-inefficient homes to be heated. We must address the needs of our elderly people as a matter of urgency.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) suggested an extension in the gas grid in Northern Ireland as a possible solution. We should love to see that happen, but there is not sufficient footfall for it to happen quickly. The rurality of Northern Ireland makes it more difficult to achieve. We will get there, but it will take time. This measure addresses the problem now, deals with the position as it is, and allows us to make progress.
As we were told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North, £60 million of benefit is unclaimed, sometimes as a result of ignorance but sometimes as a result of stubborn pride, and whatever the Government are doing is not enough to encourage people to claim it. We have a solution which is already working, and which gives the Government an opportunity to continue to assist those who are in most need.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) was right to say that the Government would be judged not on the basis of what the previous Government had said and done, but on the basis of what they themselves would say and do. That is the bottom line for the Government tonight. What will they do about this issue? I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and explaining what the last Chancellor did, what he should have done and what he could have done, but it was convenient enough for him to say all that. What he should say is the right thing: that we—the Government and the House of Commons—will maintain the winter fuel allowance at the higher rate to help pensioners in a way that really works, putting money in their pockets and allowing them to fill their heating tanks, keep warm, and spend the rest of their money on food.
Kate Hoey
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with many other Members, that if this is about a lack of money and about the economic situation—as the Government obviously feel that it is—we should simply say to the European Union, “We will not pay you this extra amount because we would much rather give it to our pensioners, our old people, than send it to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”?
Ian Paisley
When I look at some of the Members who are sitting in other parts of the House, I think that this is another issue on which we might unite the House. The hon. Lady is right: where there is a will, there is a way.
The Minister of State spoke of a baseline, which was all about money. Let me extend the musical metaphor and say, “Your baseline was flat, sir, and your ear was not in tune with the needs of the community.” If the House is to be relevant, it must be in tune with the needs of our elderly folk out there. It must ensure that their needs are not only properly addressed, but met. The Minister wanted bells and bouquets for what the Government are doing. I do not mean to be dramatic, but the fact is that the cuts they are proposing will bring wreaths, and the bell will toll for the most vulnerable members of society. It is clear that this cut will not deliver the assistance to pensioners that they claim their other policies and benefits will deliver.
I was disappointed when the Minister told us—a little disingenuously, I think—that he had been in contact with the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that is true, but I understand that the conversation took place a matter of days ago. The Minister has been in office for a year and a half, and ours is the coldest part of the United Kingdom. I am not a cynic, but I am tempted to suggest that the conversation with the Social Development Minister may have been prompted by today’s debate. I hope that if it was, the Minister of State will note what has been said, and will deliver for the House and the people.
I do not think that we should be sidetracked into discussing other possibilities, such as what could be achieved through gas pricing and energy efficiency measures. We should deal with the issue that is on the Order Paper, which is straightforward and simple: will the Government maintain the winter fuel allowance as the public expect them to, and will they keep the promises that were made at the last election? I believe that that is what is fair and right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank Opposition Members for raising this important subject. We have had a lively debate.
Let me begin by emphasising that the coalition Government take the issue of pensioner poverty very seriously. Our record demonstrates that. We pay more than £2 billion in winter fuel payments, and we pay it to more than 12.5 million pensioners, including more than 300,000 in Northern Ireland last year. The payments go to pensioners regardless of their income, and most do not even have to make a claim. I think that Members on both sides of the House agree that the winter fuel payment makes a real difference, ensuring that pensioners can turn up their heating in the knowledge that they will receive the help they need in order to meet their heavy winter bills.
It is regrettable that the last Administration decided not to provide for a temporary increase to become permanent—to last beyond the year of a general election. People can draw their own conclusions about why a temporary increase in winter fuel payments extended in the year running up to a general election but not beyond. It is most telling that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who spoke for the Opposition, failed to pledge to make concrete the previous Government’s temporary increase. I say that because she is a shadow Treasury Minister and if she does not know whether the Opposition would make that permanent, who would?
Cathy Jamieson
Will the Minister accept that it is time that this Government took responsibility for their actions? The decision whether to pay this increase is entirely down to this Government, and it would be irresponsible for anyone on the Government Benches to suggest otherwise. It was not the previous Government but this Government who took the decision on this budget.
Maria Miller
I think the House will draw its own conclusions from the fact that the hon. Lady again failed to take the opportunity to make clear what the Labour party’s policy is on this issue. The coalition Government have made permanent the increase in the cold weather payment from £8.50 to £25. Again, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that that money is going to the most vulnerable of our constituents. Some 2.7 million pensioner households receiving pension credit also receive the cold weather payment.
The coalition Government are taking real steps to protect pensioners, which is why one of our first actions was to restore the earnings link with the basic state pension. We also gave a triple guarantee that pensions will be increased by the highest of growth in average earnings, price increases or 2.5%. Pension credit is also available for those who have low incomes, and we have continued key support for older people such as free NHS prescriptions, travel concessions and free television licences. For the longer term, we will need to help prevent people from retiring into poverty. Again, our actions are speaking louder than mere words, through the automatic enrolment in workplace pensions.
Hon. Members have made a strong case as to why fuel poverty is a real issue for many vulnerable people, including pensioners living in Northern Ireland. The differences in Northern Ireland are clear, and hon. Members have made that point in this debate. That is why Northern Ireland receives not only the support from pension credits, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, which are provided for the rest of the UK, but a block grant of some £10.4 billion in funding for the Executive to address the particular priorities of Democratic Unionist party Members and other Northern Ireland Members. That money goes along with some £6 billion to pay for the cost of social security and pensions. We should not forget that Northern Ireland receives almost 25% more in spend per head of population than England, in recognition of the real issues that individuals living in Northern Ireland face.
Mr Dodds
The Minister makes a very valid point, but will she also acknowledge that, as we have highlighted in this debate, the people have horrendously higher needs in Northern Ireland, which arise because of ill health, fuel poverty and so on? Our energy prices are also much higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, so what she says needs to be put into perspective.
Maria Miller
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, that is why the block grant is so sizeable, and it is important that we recognise that.
Although we clearly want to address these issues here in Westminster, it is important that we work closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), mentioned, I was in Belfast only last week meeting the Minister for Social Development to discuss child poverty issues in particular. Addressing fuel poverty is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and they are well placed to determine what measures should be in place to meet local needs. Hon. Members will be aware that earlier this year Northern Ireland launched its own fuel poverty strategy, which set out key areas for improving the situation for local people. I hope that after today’s debate the Executive may consider some of the initiatives in England and Great Britain, particularly the obligation on energy suppliers, which could well be other ways to improve things over the water.
We heard important contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, but there have been some puzzling absences. Where is the shadow Minister for older people? Where is the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? We welcome the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but she is the shadow Financial Secretary—perhaps that is telling in terms of how the Opposition are dealing with this issue.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a number of important points, and he talked about benefit take-up. I hope that he can bring himself to support the work that my Department is doing, through the introduction of universal credit, to improve the working age take-up of benefits. That is slightly different from the issue we are discussing today relating to pensioners, but it will make an important contribution.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made a number of important points, and I thank her for that. The very existence of the winter fuel payment does help with people’s mental housekeeping and reassures older people that they can afford to turn up the heating, as she recognised in her contribution. However, I must say to her that tackling fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. We have to make sure that those important devolved matters are dealt with at a local level. As I said, she was not clear about the Labour party’s stance on the winter fuel payment, but perhaps she will clarify it in the closing stages of this debate—or perhaps she will not.
The Minister of State talked about the importance of prioritising those most in need and he highlighted the fact that we have reversed Labour’s cut to the cold weather payments. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) highlighted the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of factors. I have to be careful now, because I think that I have to correct the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). He said that we were cutting support for the most vulnerable but that is absolutely not the case. We are reversing Labour’s proposed cuts to the cold—
Judiciary and Fundamental Rights
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2011, the European Union Common Position on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (Negotiation Chapter 23), relating to EU enlargement: Croatia; and supports the Government’s decision to agree the Draft Common Position at COREPER on 29 June and to adopt formally that agreed position at European Council on 12 July.
This debate concerns the European Union’s common position on the judiciary and fundamental rights chapter—chapter 23—of the accession negotiations for Croatia. It also concerns the Government’s policy of agreeing that EU common position in Brussels in June and formally supporting its adoption at the Economic and Finance Council on 12 July. During the debate, I hope to bring the House up to date on some of the more recent developments in the Croatian accession process and on the various reports of the European Commission about the improvements that Croatia has made.
I shall start by addressing the more general question of enlargement before moving on to where Croatia fits within the process. The United Kingdom is, and has been from the start, a strong supporter of EU enlargement as an effective and dynamic agent of change. In a changing world in which economic and political weight is swinging eastwards, the European Union will remain strong only if it is outward-looking and continues to grow. Successive British Governments have believed that membership of the EU should be open to any European country that wants to join and meets the rigorous accession criteria.
There are three key arguments for our consistent, cross-party support in the House for the process of EU enlargement. The first such argument is one of principle. The European treaties make it clear that membership of the European Union is in principle available to any European country that wants to join and that meets the accession criteria. It is very hard to establish any reasonable ground on which we could say to Spain, Portugal or France that they should be a member of the European Union but to Croatia or another country of the Balkans or eastern Europe that they should not—if they meet the accession criteria. I stress that second element. Support in this country for enlargement goes back a long way. Some 23 years ago, in her Bruges speech of 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared, at time when it was not fashionable or even believable to do so, that it was important for everybody in Europe to remember that Prague, Warsaw and Budapest were also great European cities.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister also confirm that Istanbul is a European city and welcome the fact that President Gul of Turkey is here this week on an official visit? Does he look forward to the day when Turkey can also take its place in the European Union?
Mr Lidington
Yes, I certainly support what the hon. Gentleman has said. Labour and Conservative Governments alike have consistently taken the position that we support Turkey’s ambitions to join the European Union. That accession process has helped to drive both political and economic reform within Turkey, and we want to see further progress being made at the earliest possible date.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I completely agree with what the Minister says. There has been cross-party support for the enlargement process, but when I held his job more than a decade ago there were 12 candidate countries beating at the door of the EU and asking to be admitted. At that stage, quite a lot wanted to join, so why does he think so few countries now want to join the EU?
Mr Lidington
I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, because I think he was quite a long-serving Minister for Europe. Part of the answer to his question is that there are now rather fewer European countries outside the European Union than was once the case. However, one thing that is common to the political leaderships of all the countries in the western Balkans is an ambition to become part of the European family of nations. We in the UK sometimes underestimate that strength of feeling. They regard membership of the EU as setting the seal on their democratic development and on the restoration of their place in the European family.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
While we are having a trot around Europe, let me ask about countries such as Moldova that want to join the European Union. Does the Minister agree that what they really want is to join a free trade area rather than some sort of superstate?
Mr Lidington
In my conversations with Moldovan Ministers I find that they have ambitions for more than just a trading relationship. Certainly, when I have met the Moldovan Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and deputy Foreign Minister, they have stressed to me that they see value in market integration with the single market. However, they also see the move towards meeting European standards on democratic governance, rule of law and respect for human rights as in the interests of the people of Moldova, enabling them decisively to relegate to history their experience of Soviet rule over so many decades. Although Moldova is not a candidate for European membership at the moment, I have said publicly in Chisinau—I think I am still the only British Minister who has been to the British embassy in Chisinau—that we supported Moldova’s work within the Eastern Partnership as a matter of principle and that if it wished to take that further and in due course apply for membership and comply with the demanding accession criteria, the United Kingdom would strongly support and encourage that.
The second argument for enlargement develops from what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). There is a powerful political case for the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement helps to create stability, security and prosperity across Europe. We see this most dramatically if we look at the recent history of central and eastern Europe. We have seen how the process of EU accession has helped to entrench democracy, the rule of law and human rights in parts of our continent where those values and traditions were crushed for most of the 20th century.
If the House contrasts the experience of central and eastern Europe in the 20 years from 1919 to 1939 with the 20 years from 1989 to 2009, it will see the difference that the institutionalisation of democratic reform through the EU accession process has made, and made for the good. Although I would happily say to my hon. Friends and to some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that there are plenty of faults in the way the EU currently does business and the way it is constructed, when we weigh up the value of the European Union and the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, we need to take account of that rather proud political record in support for the development of a culture of human rights, the rule of law and democratic government in parts of Europe where those traditions have been absent for so long.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend comment on Macedonia, which is keen to join the accession process? Is it not a fact that Croatia or any other country that wants to enter the European Union is signing a pact—a contract—to join the euro? What would be his advice to such countries on doing that at this time?
Mr Lidington
My advice is that that has to be a sovereign decision for the country concerned. I do not waver in my view that joining the euro would not be in the national interest of the United Kingdom, and I make no apology for having long held that view, but each country must take its own decision. Some countries with small economies, which are, perhaps, very dependent on trade with immediate European neighbours, would find it more difficult to see themselves outside the euro, at least over the longer term, than a country such as the UK. At the end of the day it must be a matter for each accession country to decide for itself in the course of EU negotiations.
The third argument for enlargement is an economic one and it is—
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on to that further point, is there not an important and slightly more domestic political benefit to support for enlargement of the European Union? There are more countries in the European Union that want to see a less deeply aligned European Union and more of a trading union, which we on the Conservative Benches also want to see. The more countries with that view of Europe, the better. Therefore accession countries with that view and that approach to markets should be encouraged.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point indeed, although it would be a mistake to class all new accession countries as if they were of one mind and part of a bloc. The Government of the Czech Republic, for example, take an approach towards the European Union that on many issues is not dissimilar from that expressed by the United Kingdom Government. With the Slovak Parliament’s controversial debate over the future of the euro, we have seen the strong view that even a small member state is entitled to have a say and not be overruled by a directoire of the larger member states.
However, I caution my hon. Friend. If one looks at, say, Estonia, the ambition that it had to join the euro, and the celebrations on the streets when it joined the euro—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) prompts me from a sedentary position about Poland, which is keen to be in the euro one day, but certainly not to be told what to do by other, older member states. There is a variety of different positions among member states.
The political value of enlargement is partly that it recognises the truth about the diversity of European political culture. It is important that as the EU evolves and reflects upon its own systems of governance and its institutional set-up, it does so in a way that takes full account of the diversity of European political and cultural experience. The model that may have served six member states in western Europe in the 1950s will not be the right one for a community of 27—soon to be 28—member states encompassing all parts of our continent.
The third argument for enlargement relates to economic interest. The economic benefits of expanding the single market are significant. British exports of goods and services to the 12 new member states of central and eastern Europe increased over the 10 years straddling their accession by more than two and a half times to over £11.6 billion in 2009. So there are advantages for our businesses and our people, as well as for the businesses and people of the accession countries. In Croatia’s case, meeting the single market rules means that British businesses will be better able to benefit from trade and investment opportunities in that country—for example, in Croatia’s expanding ports sector, its tourism industry and agriculture.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I want to challenge my right hon. Friend on the idea that an expanded Europe is good for security and stability. I declare my interest as a special constable with British Transport police. If one speaks to the British Transport police or the Metropolitan police, they say that every day police officers in London are arresting more and more EU nationals from eastern European countries, particularly Bulgaria, Romania and other accession states, as part of criminalised gangs working in London because London is the biggest, most cosmopolitan city in the European Union. With the EU expanding, the problem of crime on the streets of our capital city is getting worse because of the ease of access across international borders.
Mr Lidington
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s voluntary work for the British Transport police. I certainly believe that it is important that we ensure that the freedom of movement that comes with membership of the European Union is not applied in a way that can be abused. It is right that somebody who is coming here to take a job—in some cases it will be a job that British people have been unwilling to take on; one talks to a lot of employers who will say that—should be entitled to do so. If they are prepared to come here, live by the law, work hard, pay their taxes and make a contribution to society, few of us have problems with that. But I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If people seek to abuse the system and have come here to exploit our welfare system or to commit crime, the full rigour of the law should be applied against them.
Mr Lidington
I will give way once more to my hon. Friend, then I shall make some progress.
Mr Bone
The Minister, as usual, is being extremely generous. Is not the trick to put on a proviso that people coming from new accession countries will need a work permit to come and work in this country? In that way we can ensure that we get people into the EU, without necessarily worrying about flooding the market here for workers.
Mr Lidington
It certainly was a mistake made by the previous Government that the transitional controls that could have been applied to some of the new member countries were not applied. We are taking very seriously the transitional arrangements that still apply to Romania and Bulgaria. I would also say to my hon. Friend that the process of enlargement and the market integration that goes with that should over time—I accept that this is not an instant process—enable those countries to generate economic growth and employment opportunities themselves that make the sort of migratory pressures from unskilled workers less acute than he identifies them at the moment.
Further enlargement depends upon countries meeting accession criteria that are both fair and rigorous, and it is important when considering Croatia’s case to recognise that this conditionality has been further developed since the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, learning from the lessons of the accession experience of those countries, and that conditionality is of critical importance to protect the credibility of the enlargement process and to encourage future EU expansion.
The EU’s approach to negotiations with Croatia was guided by the European Council’s 2006 renewed consensus on enlargement. That was agreed in response to the lessons learned from previous negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. In particular, it led to the creation of an entirely new chapter, chapter 23, to cover judiciary and fundamental rights. That arrangement, I stress, did not exist in previous accession negotiations. Croatia has therefore been through a much more rigorous accession process, especially over the matters that we are debating this evening, than did either Romania or Bulgaria.
Chapter 23 focused on ensuring that Croatia has a strong and independent court system, is tackling corruption and organised crime, is protecting fundamental rights and is dealing with the legacy of the Balkans’ wars in areas such as war crimes trials and refugee return. Chapter 23 was opened in June 2010, after the United Kingdom, working closely with partners, secured comprehensive and robust closing benchmarks. These included a requirement that Croatia co-operate fully with the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
The Commission published in March 2011 an interim report that concluded that Croatia had made considerable progress against closing benchmarks for chapter 23 but still had further work to do, and as a consequence of that Commission report, Croatia accelerated its efforts. We agreed with the Commission’s subsequent assessment, set out in the draft common position of June 2011, that over the six years of its accession process Croatia had undertaken significant reform efforts in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights, that it had worked to improve the independence, impartiality, efficiency and professionalism of the judiciary, and it had improved its handling of domestic war crimes trials, strengthened the fight against corruption and increased Croatia’s protection of fundamental rights.
But I emphasise that that support for the common position does not mean that we accepted at that point that Croatia had done all that needed to be done, nor indeed had the European Commission made that conclusion. The key judgment is whether Croatia will be able to assume in full the obligations of EU membership from the date of its accession, which is proposed for 1 July 2013. The Commission recommended closing chapter 23 on the basis of its assessment that Croatia’s track record in these areas indicated that the reforms were sustainable and would not slip backwards after the conclusion of negotiations.
Crucially, the Commission also underlined the importance of Croatia continuing to develop a track record of implementation across the board. This last stipulation is very important, and one for which we worked hard during the negotiations. We secured a number of improvements in the EU common position, building on strong language included in the 24 June European Council conclusions. The key passage in those conclusions reads:
“Croatia should continue its reform efforts with the same vigour, in particular as regards the judiciary and fundamental rights, so as to be able to assume fully the obligations of membership from the date of accession. Monitoring up to accession of these reform efforts will give the necessary assurance to Croatia and to current Member States.”
We are determined that Croatia should fully meet EU requirements across the board, and particularly over chapter 23, by the time of accession, and we are determined to see that there is no backsliding. In fairness, Croatian Ministers repeatedly say, in bilateral meetings or at EU gatherings, that they are committed to ensuring that progress continues. During the final weeks of negotiation, we secured agreement to additional monitoring arrangements for Croatia, which will continue right up until its accession. We expect each of the Commission’s six-monthly reports on chapter 23, the first of which was issued on 28 October 2011, to show clear progress. I should say that the report issued on 28 October is still being analysed in detail by officials in my Department, but I undertake this evening to deposit copies of that report in the Library of the House and to write to the European Scrutiny Committee in order to draw its attention to the conclusions of that document.
A comprehensive monitoring report will be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council in the autumn of 2012, and these six-monthly reports, together with the comprehensive report next autumn, will allow both Governments and Parliaments right across the European Union to assess Croatian progress towards full alignment with the acquis and with European standards by the time of accession.
Croatia is fully aware that the monitoring measures now put in place enable the Council to take what are termed “all appropriate measures”, as agreed at the 24 June European Council, if issues of concern are identified during the monitoring process. A system of sticks and carrots is built into the pre-accession monitoring process to enable the Commission, on behalf of member states, to keep a very close eye on the detailed progress that Croatia is making and to flag up any concerns that might be discovered about backsliding.
Croatia is also aware that in order to accede to the EU on the target date of 1 July 2013, her accession treaty must have been ratified by each of the 27 member states, including by this Parliament. As the House knows, the Croatian accession treaty will require ratification under the terms of the European Union Act 2011, and that will require primary legislation going through both Houses of Parliament here. It seems to me that Croatia knows that it must address thoroughly all the concerns of the member states if it is to secure that full ratification.
On the basis of the clear progress already achieved by Croatia, together with this pre-accession mechanism for robust monitoring right up to accession, we agreed to close negotiations on chapter 23. Since the closure of those negotiations earlier this year, Croatia has continued to make progress in implementing the necessary reforms. This was noted in the Commission’s progress report, published on 12 October 2011. I want to highlight the progress that has been made in several areas, which the European Scrutiny Committee identified as important in its 38th report to the House.
The Commission’s report notes that Croatia has made substantial progress on judiciary and fundamental rights, and that reform of the judiciary has continued. Croatia has continued to demonstrate progress on updating its judicial reform strategy and action plan, and it has also continued to work on strengthening the protection of minorities, with good progress on refugee returns. In support of an autonomously functioning stable judiciary Croatia has, for example, made changes to its Conflict of Interest Act to depoliticise appointments to the supervisory boards of state-owned companies, as well as to membership of the conflict of interest commission itself, and that commission has already received 3,000 Croatian officials’ declarations of assets.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend mentions that progress on refugee returns has been good, but as I understand it, Croatian co-operation has fallen some way short of being full, because whilst the overall case backlog on outstanding refugee return issues has fallen by 10,000, there were still 785,561 to go. Why is that good progress? It seems very small progress to me.
Mr Lidington
I will move on to that in a moment, because we certainly agree that Croatia has a lot more to do. I do not pretend that everything is fine and dandy, because more needs to be done, but I am saying to my hon. Friend and to the House that Croatia’s continued progress since the closure of negotiations early this year encourages us to be confident in the political resolution of Croatia’s Government and opposition parties to take forward compliance with European standards with the necessary determination and speed.
Keith Vaz
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way to so many Members. One concern that we must address is the tendency for the focus from Brussels suddenly to disappear when a country joins the EU. A lot of time is spent negotiating the acquis, but once countries join no one seems to bother about them. Does he agree that it is important that the monitoring process continues even though those countries are full members of the EU and that there should be some kind of buddy principle that allows some countries to assist others in the process of fully integrating into the EU?
Mr Lidington
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and describing it as a buddy system makes it sound quite cuddly and attractive, but I would not want to make routine the experience of the mechanism for co-operation and verification that was invented for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. Whether one talks with political leaders in those countries or in some of the older member states, one finds a common recognition that that was a very unhappy way for those negotiations to turn out and that it left those two countries feeling that they are being treated as second-class members, even though their accession treaties have been negotiated, signed and ratified by everyone. It has left some of the older member states feeling that the decision to allow Romania and Bulgaria to accede was agreed without all the standards being adequately met.
The introduction of chapter 23, which was used for the first time with Croatia, has been a significant step forward in trying to address up front, before we get to the end of accession negotiations, let alone ratification of an accession treaty, the problems that have persisted with Romania and Bulgaria that we seek to address through the mechanism for co-operation and verification.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) might already know that we are discussing some interesting proposals from Commissioner Füle, the Enlargement Commissioner, to develop a new approach towards enlargement that would seek deliberately to front-load some of the most difficult elements of an accession negotiation precisely so that an accession state not only can implement challenging reforms, but has time to develop a track record so that we can see the results of those reforms, rather than those being addressed at the last stage of negotiations when questions are inevitably asked about whether the reform will be sustained over a long period of time. It is important that we learn from experience. I do not want us to repeat in future cases the experience of Romania and Bulgaria.
The Commission’s report also noted substantial progress in the fight against corruption, including continued political commitment and a number of further investigations launched and indictments and court rulings issued, including at high levels. The most high-profile case, the trial of former Prime Minister Ivo Sanader for diversion of funds, opened in November this year. However, I want to emphasise that the Government completely accept that Croatia still has more to do. A number of judicial reforms are still at a very early stage. The long-standing issue of case backlogs in old civil cases and enforcement decisions remains a problem, although numbers have decreased. We will be looking for rapid progress once the new enforcement law and public enforcement agency become operational in January 2012.
Although the handling of domestic war crimes cases has improved, the issue of impunity needs to be thoroughly addressed. We welcome the adoption of a new strategy on impunity that recognises the existence of uninvestigated and unprosecuted crimes and the creation of new dedicated specialist chambers for war crimes trials. In June, criminal charges were raised in 84 such cases. Continued full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is also particularly important. We constantly stress that to Croatia and fellow EU member states and remain in contact with Chief Prosecutor Brammertz, whom I met a couple of weeks ago in the Hague, in order to ensure that we are fully up to date with his thinking about the co-operation of the Croatian authorities with ICTY.
We welcome the Croatian Parliament’s adoption on 21 October of a declaration on the promotion of European values in south-east Europe, which states a firm commitment from Croatia that bilateral issues such as border disputes must not obstruct the accession of candidate countries to the EU from the beginning of their accession process.
Britain has been helping Croatia to tackle many of the concerns relating to outstanding reform. If the House wishes, and I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be happy during the concluding remarks to address that in more detail or to write to interested Members. Bilateral assistance currently runs at nearly £500,000 a year, carefully targeted in particular on some of the judicial and rule-of-law reforms where outstanding work is still needed.
In conclusion, Croatia has made great progress over the course of its accession negotiations in meeting the rigorous closing benchmarks set for each negotiating chapter. The United Kingdom was also successful in securing robust pre-accession monitoring that will enable this House to maintain a close watch on the further progress that we still need to see. It was on this basis that the Government were able to agree to close negotiations with Croatia and agree a target date of 1 July 2013 for EU accession. Croatia still has more to do over and above that required by closing benchmarks, but the Commission has reported continued progress since the closure of negotiations and we expect Croatia to continue to make swift progress towards finalising its full alignment with EU requirements before 1 July 2013. We have heard from the Commission within the past few days that it will propose that the draft decision on Croatian accession will be agreed at the General Affairs Council on 5 December to enable the treaty of accession to be signed by Heads of State and Government at the European Council on 9 December. I shall be writing imminently to the European Scrutiny Committees of this House and the House of Lords to set out the Government’s approach to that draft decision.
Croatia is a friend of the United Kingdom, but we shall be a candid, honest friend, who will monitor closely Croatia’s evolving track record and speak openly to our Croatian friends about the work that still needs doing.
We expect the Croatian Government to act rapidly to implement the remaining necessary reforms, and her continued commitment to reform provides an excellent example to the other countries of the western Balkans in pursuing their European future.
Croatian accession will represent the achievement of an historic goal not only for Croatia, but for the European Union. The enlargement process has encouraged and supported reform and transformation in Croatia, a country now only a few small steps from being a fully prepared member of the EU.
We now look to Croatia to take those last remaining steps, by which it will have fully met the strict requirements for entry to the European Union, and I commend the motion to the House.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to debate Croatia’s accession to the European Union and, in particular, its progress under chapter 23 on judicial and fundamental rights.
As the Minister has underlined, there is in the House a broad, cross-party consensus on enlargement. When our party was in government, we supported the path of accession for the western Balkans, and we are pleased that significant progress continues to be made. In effect, the progress is remarkable, given that it is only 16 years since the signing of the Dayton accords, which put an end to the worst outbreak of violence seen in Europe since 1945.
In the early 1990s, Yugoslav republics collapsed into war, with friends and neighbours pitted against each other in the name of ethnic and religious nationalism. One of the principal objectives and greatest achievements of the European Union has been to put an end to the wars that wrought so much damage on Europe in the first half of the 20th century. It is therefore right that the EU should support the membership aspirations of the western Balkans, and we are proud of the fact that under the previous, Labour Government, Slovenia joined the European Union and the negotiations that Croatia began made significant headway.
With European Union membership comes responsibility for reform, however, and it is right that any discussion of accession involves detailed and complex benchmarks, so it is testament to the dedication and intellectual rigour of the European Scrutiny Committee that it has concentrated on chapter 23, a highly important area where progress is vital.
The Committee is right to stress, and the Minister also underlined, that lessons must be learned from the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. That experience led directly to the introduction of the new chapter, which covers a range of areas, including the appointment and independence of judges and prosecutors, tackling corruption, the protection of fundamental rights and, importantly, Croatia’s co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Each area is crucial to an effective, modern and democratic state that protects its citizens from discrimination and roots out corruption.
While we were in government, we paid particular attention to progress in that area. We also led the way in putting pressure on the western Balkans to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. At that time, we were concerned about the Croatian Government’s level of co-operation with the ICTY, and we exerted pressure on them to find and release key military documents from the period in question.
In April, former military commanders, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, were sentenced by the court for their role in the war. Their convictions are important not only because justice has been done, but because it sends a powerful signal to military commanders everywhere that the international community can and will pursue the perpetrators of war crimes.
We welcome the recent report of chief prosecutor Brammertz, which states that the Croatian Government are providing “timely and adequate” responses to requests for witnesses and evidence, while expressing disappointment at the “limited progress” in locating the military documents relating to Operation Storm. The Opposition place a high value on Croatia’s continued co-operation with the ICTY. Engaging constructively with the court is a test of Croatia’s willingness to draw a line under its past and to look forwards to a brighter future within the EU.
We welcome the Croatian Government’s strategy, adopted in February, for addressing impunity. In particular, we welcome the improvements in witness support and the new legislation for four specialised war crime chambers. Although Croatia has clearly made some progress in investigating and prosecuting domestic war crime cases, considerable progress still needs to be made.
Given that the strategy still needs to be systematically implemented, will the Minister tell the House in his winding-up speech whether he is satisfied that priority is being given to the most serious war crimes cases? Are cases in which the alleged perpetrators were members of the Croatian security forces being investigated and pursued? Are the Government assisting the Croatian Government in that important area?
We welcome the active role that Croatia is playing in regional co-operation. It is vital that Croatia maintains good relations with its neighbours, and in particular we welcome its support for the membership aspirations of other western Balkan countries. The visit of the Croatian President to Serbia and the Serbian President to Croatia marks an important step in the improvement of relations between the two countries.
It is vital that Croatia’s significant reforms on the independence, accountability and professionalism of the judiciary are carried through. We welcome the new state school for judicial officials, which will recruit and train judges and prosecutors. That is essential to ensuring that candidates are selected on the basis of merit not patronage. However, the new state school will not produce graduates until 2013. Has the Minister discussed that issue with his Croatian counterpart and is he satisfied that, prior to accession, Croatia will be able to push forward in that area?
In its most recent report on enlargement, the European Commission states that there has been “substantial progress” on anti-corruption measures. It is, indeed, encouraging that a raft of measures have been implemented as part of the Croatian Government’s anti-corruption action plan, including the introduction of a new police Act to make the police more professional and, crucially, to depoliticise the force. A requirement for Government officials to register their assets has also been introduced. As the Minister said, it is promising that high-level corruption cases are being investigated, including the case against the former Prime Minister, and that the accounts of the party of the current Prime Minister are also being looked into.
However, corruption is one of the areas of most serious concern in this chapter. The Commission states that more needs to be done to establish a track record in the effective handling of organised crime and corruption and local and high-level corruption cases, including cases related to public procurement and the judiciary. Although it is clear that the Croatian Government are seized of the importance of that issue, will the Minister reassure the House that he is confident that those measures will be effectively implemented prior to accession?
We welcome the recent comprehensive study and subsequent action plan on the representation of national minorities in the public sector in Croatia. However, as the European Scrutiny Committee and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) have highlighted, there remains a substantial backlog of housing appeals from those refugees wishing to return and fewer than half the available housing units have been handed over to successful applicants. More progress on that issue is needed to provide assurances that the Croatian Government are committed to honouring their pledges to refugees seeking to return.
On another issue, a recent gay rights parade in Split was attacked and the police failed to protect those on the march. In winding up, will the Minister say whether he has discussed that incident with the Croatian Government, whether he is satisfied that freedom of speech and expression can be secured, and whether discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is being tackled by the Croatian Government?
After the experience of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we welcome the introduction of this new chapter, as well as the introduction of a new monitoring mechanism. It is clear that once countries become EU members, it is very difficult to apply pressure for improvement and change, so the pre-accession period is incredibly important. Is the Minister satisfied that his Government, and more widely the EU, has sufficient leverage in the period between the signing of the accession treaty in December and accession itself in July 2013? What more can the Government do to help Croatia deliver those changes?
In conclusion, Croatia’s preparation for accession has been rigorous to date. Both the nature and number of reforms introduced in a short period have been impressive. However, in terms of chapter 23, it is evident that Croatia still needs to demonstrate a track record on implementation and enforcement. We will continue to scrutinise the work of the Government and the European Union in its monitoring of progress during the pre-accession period. It is particularly important to monitor reforms with regard to the recruitment and independence of the judiciary and the measures introduced to tackle corruption.
Following Slovenia’s accession and given the war that blighted the western Balkans in the 1990s, Croatia joining the EU will be an historic moment. Providing the reforms in this area are carried out and successfully implemented, and providing that the House ratifies the accession treaty of Croatia, we look forward to welcoming Croatia into the European Union.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I should like to start by putting on the record my congratulations to Croatia on getting this far in its process towards accession to the European Union. I am a big fan of an expanded single market because I genuinely believe that it is in the interests of all EU member states. I share the relief of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that the aspiration of Balkan countries to accede to the EU has laid to rest some of the final outstanding issues relating back to the tragic war in the Balkans. That can only be good news.
I want to make a few short remarks about procedures with regard to EU legislation generally and the motion specifically. The European Commission’s assessment of Croatian progress towards achieving its obligations under chapter 23 says:
“Across the board an appropriate legal framework and the necessary implementing structures and institutions are generally in place, administrative capacity is being continuously strengthened and track records of results have been established or continue to be developed, thereby ensuring the overall sustainability of reforms. Provided Croatia continues its efforts and meets the commitments it has undertaken, further concrete results should follow.”
That is two cheers, in a way. It is clear that Croatia is not there yet, but there is great hope that it will continue to make progress towards the date of its accession. There are all sorts of safeguards by which the EU could start to impose sanctions against Croatia if it does not continue in that work. It would be of enormous benefit to this House if the scrutiny of such scrutiny were to take place more broadly within Parliament prior to coming to the Chamber for a debate on a specific motion.
In its scrutiny of the proposals, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that Croatia still has a long way to go before it achieves the standards set by the Commission and noted that Bulgaria and Romania have still not reached those standards since joining in 2007. Although, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, chapter 23 was introduced only in 2010, Bulgaria and Romania could have been expected to have made further progress by now, and there is still the question mark over whether Croatia will make the necessary progress.
I am aware that my hon. Friend is looking at the general question of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. On 20 January this year, he said in a written statement to this House that EU scrutiny must be enhanced. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the Conservative European research group wrote to my hon. Friend about the need for enhanced scrutiny, particularly of EU legislation.
As a final addition to this little trio of ideas, yesterday a group of us went to meet the British delegation of MEPs in Brussels, and they said that they find that the other House is far better than this House at engaging with EU legislation as it comes down the track. That is a great shame.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats’ international affairs committee also wrote to the Minister on this subject. Would the hon. Lady support one of our proposals, which was for European prospective legislation and documents to be scrutinised by the specialist Select Committees that we already have, as well as by the European Scrutiny Committee, thereby allowing those with expertise in environmental issues to scrutinise environmental legislation and so on?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are not discussing the broader question of scrutiny of all European matters. This is specifically a debate that is mainly about Croatia, and I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will now come back to that subject. She has got her point on the record, and so has the hon. Gentleman.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your guidance entirely. Nevertheless, I would just like to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I do agree that scrutiny, particularly of Croatia—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must respond only with regard to Croatia. I hope that she will not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about his party’s proposals for scrutiny. We are not discussing that; we are discussing Croatia.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Specifically in relation to Croatia’s accession to the European Union, does my hon. Friend think that it would have been helpful if the Foreign Affairs Committee had had purview over this matter so that an extra dimension could have been brought into this debate?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the proposal that I wanted to put to the Minister. The Foreign Affairs Committee might well have had a useful contribution to make to this debate, as might the Justice Committee. Specifically with regard to Croatia’s accession plans, there are issues with the European arrest warrant, human trafficking, organised crime and so on. As has been said, there are concerns over the accession of some European Union states where those problems have been prevalent. It therefore appears that there might be some benefit if, rather than the current situation where the European Scrutiny Committee is allowed to require or request that specialist Select Committees scrutinise particular legislation, there was a more proactive approach to asking specialist Select Committees to look at legislation in cases such as this before they come to the Chamber. I hope that that point can be applied both generally and specifically to this debate.
I will certainly support Croatia’s accession to the European Union, but with the expectation that the Minister will look carefully at whether some assessment by Select Committees in advance of this debate might have given Members more to go on in deciding whether we are taking a risk or not.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I have been asked by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee to speak on behalf of the Committee. One reason for that is that the position of Opposition Members on this issue is the same as that of Government Members, particularly in the Committee.
Some of us do take the trouble to read other Select Committee reports. The Foreign Affairs Committee looked at human rights in the context of enlargement and it made some salient comments that I hope the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has taken the trouble to read. That work feeds in to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee. We do not just live in a Euro-bubble, but look at broader matters.
It might be helpful to the House if I put this matter in context by explaining its background and why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended that it should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than leaving it to go to a European Standing Committee. We have always been concerned about the continuing trend, which the Government, despite their promises, have not reversed, of the European Committees not having permanent memberships. If their memberships were permanent, there would be at least be 13 Members on three Committees—that is 39 people—who would consistently take the trouble to look at European matters and build up a body of knowledge. At the moment, the Committee structure is such that people are put on European Committees randomly. They mostly do not turn up to the debates and do not gather the knowledge that they should have.
The concern is that when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in January 2007, it was recognised by Members from all parts of the House that a number of good governance issues had not been addressed. The oddest thing was that the European Commission and the European Council decided that if those countries did not get access in 2007, they would automatically get access in 2008 and become full members of the EU. Basically, the incentive to continue progress, particularly in areas of good governance, ceased for Romania and Bulgaria.
The European Union therefore had to set up a co-operation and verification mechanism. The Minister has described that as making the Romanians and Bulgarians feel as though they were second-class citizens. The reality is that they should never have been citizens of the EU at all because they were not fit to be members. That is the truth of it. They had to be harried and harassed to take the process seriously, and in fact at one point the EU suspended the financing of one of those countries and refused to allow it to spend any more EU money. It got that bad. Nothing had really been done to improve the situation from 2007.
A series of benchmarks were set under the verification mechanism to do with the judicial system—we are talking about the judiciary today. In the case of Bulgaria, there was the benchmark of tackling corruption and massive organised crime at the highest level of the country. There were a number of contract murders—not a couple, but 104 was the figure we heard when the Bulgarian Foreign Secretary came before the Committee. Those were organised killings by organised criminals.
Even now, neither country has reached the point at which the European Commission is able to say that it has what was, and still is, required. I will name those requirements for the record. The Commission does not think that they have an
“autonomously functioning, stable judiciary, which is able to detect and sanction conflicts of interest, corruption and organized crime and preserve rule of law”.
That is its present position on Romania and Bulgaria, to different degrees in each country. Nor do those countries have
“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.
We heard the feeble excuse from the then Foreign Secretary of Bulgaria that Bulgaria had not actually convicted anyone of any of the 104 killings because the criminals had hired hit-men from Russia, who committed the crime, killed people and then went back to Russia, where they could not be found. That is a terrible indictment of Bulgaria. It is in the European Union, but it has a long way to go before it reaches the benchmarks that the European Scrutiny Committee would have set for it. The Commission also believes that those countries do not have a legal system that is capable of implementing the law independently and efficiently.
With those mistakes having been made, and with the Committee having followed the process very seriously, we did not want a post-mortem, but we wanted to have assurances that those mistakes would not be repeated in the case of Croatia. That was why the new chapter 23 was introduced into the EU accession process, dealing with the judiciary and fundamental freedoms. In the summer of 2010, Croatia’s chapter 23 negotiations were finally opened. As the Minister put it then, agreement was based on
“rigorous benchmarks in the areas we want”.
Before the chapter could be closed, that
“comprehensive and robust set of benchmarks”
would need to be met, covering judicial transparency, impartiality and efficiency; tackling corruption; protecting minority rights; resolving outstanding refugee return issues; the protection of human rights; and, crucially, full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Croatia would need to show a track record of implementation across all those areas, to avoid the mistakes of Romania and Bulgaria.
The common position that we are discussing tonight is the European Commission’s assessment of Croatia’s progress. It recommended that no further negotiations were required, and underlined the importance of Croatia continuing to develop a track record of implementation across the board. It was formally adopted—without discussion, I might add—at the July European Council. I find it quite concerning that there was not in fact a fundamental and deep debate at the European Council about that assessment, because it shows that people may once again be taking their eye off the ball. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the former Europe Minister, pointed out that once countries are in the EU, it seems that the process of vigilance slips away. It is worrying that that might be happening in this case, if the Council cannot even discuss such an important decision at its meeting.
In endorsing the common position, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Minister for Europe made much of the irreversibility of the process, and of the monitoring that would be undertaken during the two years before Croatia could accede. I do not think the EU’s record is quite so good that we can believe that the process is irreversible.
I share the ambition for all the western Balkans to become part of the EU, and all the things that the Minister has said about the benefits of that for trade, democracy and human rights are to be applauded and worked hard for. However, Croatia has a border of about 1,000 km with other parts of the western Balkans. When I met the Serbians recently, and when I have met people from Bosnia-Herzegovina and from Macedonia, where I went with the Committee, they expressed deep fears about what lies on their border and what is going on in the rest of the area. When I met the Serbians, they pointed fingers at other countries, as did the Bosnians. The reality is that this is a serious concern for anyone who is particularly worried about the ability of people to use Croatia as an access to Europe. It is one of the trade routes for human trafficking, for drugs and for other matters that afflict the rest of the EU.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, because there will be a massive expansion of the common external frontier with Croatia’s accession, as there was with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. One of the biggest challenges facing the EU and the UK—this is where everybody comes, because London is the biggest, most cosmopolitan city in Europe—is the lack of border controls on the EU boundary. The demands on accession countries to have secure borders are far too weak.
Michael Connarty
I think what we have here is a question: should we fear accession and therefore lock countries out of the EU, or should we address that concern properly, so that we can welcome countries into the EU but make sure that we give them the resources to secure those borders? I have recently been to Frontex with the European Scrutiny Committee, and it says, “Do not rely on Frontex to protect EU borders.” It is a small organisation that basically works on intelligence—it has some quick reactive ability but not the massive resources required.
We need to make sure that the Croatians are at one with us on this. We need to ensure either that they have the resources or that we give them the resources, so they can make sure they have a secure border and can protect themselves against worries of criminality coming into their territory, just like anyone in London or any other part of the EU.
The European Scrutiny Committee took the view that it is plain that Croatia still has much to do over the next two years. If our ambition is to have Croatia in the EU, we must ensure that we resource and support it. To have Croatia in and expand the borders without those protections leads to the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and many ordinary citizens—that the more we expand Europe, the more we threaten to infect our security, human rights and peace.
The reality is that despite four years of post-accession assistance and monitoring under the co-operation and verification mechanism, the Committee is still looking for that protection in respect of Bulgaria and Romania. We do not want to see Croatia added to that by not being properly resourced and supported.
The Committee noted in particular that the process of systematically tackling war crimes appears to have barely begun. Judging from the latest report by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Croatian co-operation is still some way off being described as “full”. Although the overall case backlog of returning refugees, which the hon. Member for Kettering mentioned—I will cite the same figure he did—has fallen by a further 10,000, some 785,561 cases are still to be dealt with, which is a massive way to go.
In sum, the Committee said that a great deal of further implementation would need to be accomplished by July 2013 if Croatia was to be able to demonstrate a track record that indicated it was truly ready for accession. I noted that the Minister said it looked as though the final decision would be ready for signature on 9 December. It is a matter of concern when the European Commission gives itself a target. Early on, it was saying that the earlier succession date for Croatia would be the end of 2011. It is determined to deliver that, regardless of concerns that might be expressed, so its promises will turn into solid work and a fruitful result for the EU. It is quite clear that it is going for a 2011 accession and is determined to have it. No one seems to be demanding a decent discussion in the European Council about that.
We are in the position at the minute where the Minister has said that he has secured improvements in the EU’s composition. I look forward to him putting his note in the Library and sending it to the European Scrutiny Committee so we can see the detail, but he said basically that “appropriate measures” proposed would be subject to qualified majority voting. Qualified majority voting means that any further measures can be agreed without anyone having a veto, so we are basically giving away the final say in stopping the process by the date that has been given—9 December. I hope people realise that that is what the Government are doing. Any further measures can be completely and utterly forgotten about and we can do nothing about it. The Committee felt that if this was strong language, it strongly suggested that the deal was already done, and that even if it was not, the lengthy and unproductive experience of the co-operation and verification mechanism in Bulgaria and Romania was hardly encouraging.
The Minister for Europe said that chapter 23 was an alternative to the co-operation and verification mechanism, so I hope he will say a word or two about what happens if Croatia turns out to be another problem added to the EU rather than one that has solved its problems. I hope that it has solved its problems. I have warm feelings towards the people I have met in the political class in that country who desire to be in the EU and to bring all its benefits to their country, but we have to worry about things that are not, at this moment, quite as we would want them in a full EU member state.
All in all, there appeared to the Committee to be loud and unwelcome echoes of those earlier accession processes —chapter 23 notwithstanding—and further confirmation that what had been judged most important was not adhering to appropriate conditionality prior to accession. We made that point again and again. If conditionality was applied, it should be easily verifiable: when it is reached, people should come in, but if it is not reached, we should not simply hope that they will get there eventually after they come in.
Although the eventual accession treaty will require the approval of the House, the Committee felt that the House should be given the opportunity now, at the beginning of the process, to debate this issue, vital as it is to the integrity of the accession process. I am sorry that so few Members are taking part in this debate, because this is the next major change to this Parliament’s relationship with the European process, and I would have hoped that more people would have come to air their views.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a timed debate that is due to end at 22 minutes past 9, and that I shall want to give a few minutes to the Minister to say a few words in response. I ask Members to bear that in mind so that we can fit everybody in.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Although I appreciate that as usual with these matters the accession of Croatia is essentially a done deal, I want to raise one or two concerns about the accession process and the consequences that agreeing to Croatia joining the European Union will have on the United Kingdom.
It is anticipated that the formal accession agreement will be signed at the European Council meeting scheduled for 9 December, but it appears that EU leaders are effectively taking it on trust that Croatia will complete the necessary preparations before it is formally allowed to join on 1 July 2013. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, however, Croatia needs to do a lot more. Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum, which quotes the Commission’s own assessment, spells out that further efforts are needed from Croatia in order to improve the independence, impartiality, efficiency and professionalism of its judiciary, and that only if the commitments made by Croatia are met will that country be ready.
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) spelled out in his clear speech, it is obvious that whatever processes were in place when Bulgaria and Romania were allowed to become members of the EU, the checking mechanism in advance did not work. Now, years later, there are still problems with those countries. It is to be hoped that the checking mechanism between now and July 2013 will be slightly more rigorous than it was for Bulgaria and Romania.
In principle, I have nothing against any country wishing to join the EU, if that is what the country and its people wish, but I have concerns if the admission of a new member state will adversely affect the interests of the United Kingdom. So far, I have seen nothing about how much Croatia might contribute to the EU budget. Indeed, some might be forgiven for thinking that Croatia’s accession will just mean the equivalent of yet another hungry mouth to feed. The European Commission has recently proposed the expenditure of an additional €13.1 million to deal with Croatian accession, to be spent on such things as Croatian translations and, of course, opening a new office in Croatia.
The accession of Croatia will mean that there will be over 4 million more citizens within the borders of the European Union. As we know only too well, following the accession of other eastern European countries to the European Union, a citizen of a member state has the right to take up employment in any other member state. Once in employment, he or she has the right to reside in that member state and is also entitled to certain welfare provision.
Mr Hollobone
Does my hon. Friend recall the difficulty that Her Majesty’s Government are currently facing with European nationals coming to this country who are not seeking employment, but who declare themselves to be self-employed and, through that mechanism, access benefits that Her Majesty’s Government give out? With 4 million new EU nationals effectively created by this new accession, that is bound to add to the problem.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a problem that will only be exacerbated by the accession of Croatia. I would be grateful to know what specific transitional arrangements are being put in place in respect of Croatian nationals wishing to come to the United Kingdom and, in particular, for how long such controls will be in place.
Furthermore, I am concerned that yet another treaty will be required to provide for the accession of a new entrant to the European Union, for which we, the United Kingdom, appear to be getting absolutely nothing back in return—and needless to say, without consulting the British people.
Martin Horwood
Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that British exports to Croatia currently amount to some £283 million a year? In general, the experience with other acceding countries has been expanded trade with those countries, which has helped British jobs, prosperity and economic prospects.
Mr Nuttall
That may well be the case, but I see no reason why we could not have negotiated a free trade deal with Croatia many years ago. Indeed, the question could have been asked of the previous Labour Government: if Croatia has so much trade with this country, why did we not negotiate a free trade deal with it a long time ago?
Let me quote what the Prime Minister said about getting something back from accession treaties. In a speech helpfully entitled “A Europe policy that people can believe in”, which he made a little over two years ago, on 4 November 2009, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he said that
“we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public service…We will want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
He added that an agreement would be negotiated
“limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”
Crucially, he made it clear that
“we will propose that these British guarantees are added as protocols to a future accession treaty,”
which is exactly what we are discussing this evening. I know that our negotiating team will have been well aware of those crystal-clear commitments.
In closing, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that those guarantees were proposed and to say what the response was? If they were not proposed, why not? If they were proposed and the response was—let me say—not entirely positive, did we indicate that we would withhold our veto if our polite proposals were not granted? After all, article 49 of the Lisbon treaty—which was the reason why that speech was given in the first place—which deals with accession treaties, specifically states that accession treaties deal with
“conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails.”
It should be argued therefore that the granting of these British guarantees is something that the admission of Croatia entails: without them, the accession could not take place, because Britain would use its veto.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall try to be brief. I do not think that the accession of a democratic NATO ally, which has had a democratic change of Government and has been transformed as a country over the last 11 years since the death of Franjo Tudjman— a country that is dynamic, that has young people who are outward looking and want to be part of modern Europe, and a country that also has a very good football team and a manager in Slaven Bilic, who once played for West Ham United—is a country that should be held hostage for an internal debate in the Conservative party over Eurosceptic or Europhobic hostility.
I believe that we should welcome Croatia. An enormous transformation has taken place in the country over recent years, partly through its own efforts but also because of the aspiration to join the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said some harsh things and some true things about what happened with Romania and Bulgaria, but I do not think that we should hold back Croatia on the basis that the country is like those two other countries were in 2006. It is not. Croatia is much more developed politically and in many other ways. It would not be right on account of some bad experiences before this new procedure was brought into effect to damage the Croatian aspiration.
I believe, too, that it is important in looking at these issues that we look at the context. We are not dealing with Croatia alone. What we are doing is sending a clear signal that it is not just Slovenia among the countries of the former Yugoslavia that can join the European Union, as we are open to all the other five states—Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo—and, indeed, to Albania. It has its own problems, but if we are to have the western Balkans stable, secure and developed with a community of trade and partnership, all those countries have to be in the European Union at some point. It would be very dangerous if there were a hole in part of southern Europe, with a country or several countries out of the political process, out of our politics and our pluralistic approach.
I say to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that the accession of Croatia will bring in a democratic, pluralistic, young and dynamic country that wants to be part of the modern European Union. The EU is still attractive to many people precisely because of that, and it is time that Members of all parties started to make that case to the British public for the future. We need a dynamic Europe; we need to look at Europe as an asset for this country, and we should stop getting obsessed and gazing at our own navel.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I aim to be very quick. I found chapter 23 very interesting, as it is the first time that that chapter has been used for the accession of a country. We have perhaps now hit the Groucho Marx threshold for Europe—that we would not be allowed to join the EU because our standards are not high enough to do so. It is somewhat complacent to imply that the standards of our judicial system are always higher than those in Croatia. I spent some time comparing and contrasting the case X v. Croatia and RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. If I have enough time, I will come back to that later.
If we look through the document outlining the EU’s response, we find the following statement:
“The EU underlines the importance of Croatia improving publication of and access to final court decisions both in the interests of the development of case law and consistent judicial practice, and in view of wider public dissemination.”
Well, the UK has a massive problem here. Many judgments are not handed down by the judge—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That is not relevant to our debate, which concerns the documents before us about Croatia. I would be grateful if, in the few minutes left to him that will enable the Minister to reply, the hon. Gentleman stuck to this evening’s subject of debate.
John Hemming
I think it important to examine the issues raised by chapter 23, however, and to compare X v. Croatia with RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. In the former case, a mother’s mental capacity was removed from her and she was told that she had no locus in the Croatian courts. She had a second opinion, which was taken through the whole Croatian court system. The domestic court system was involved in exactly the same way in the latter case, but the woman had no second opinion. In my view, the Croatian system is far better.
I highlighted the issue of judgments in the accession document. There is also the question of the anti-corruption commission. The document states:
“The EU also calls on Croatia to ensure full implementation of its system for monitoring and verification of assets declarations of public officials and judges”.
According to the Groucho Marx test, this is now a club that we would not be allowed to join, because we do not operate that sort of system here.
I think it complacent to assume that countries such as Croatia are behind the United Kingdom. The chapter 23 requirements have already pushed Croatia into doing things that we do not do here. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) may be pleased to find that in future years we might be expelled for not complying with the conditions with which Croatia complies, but I do not take the same view as him on the European Union. I think that extending the EU is a good idea. Most of the people who argue that we should leave it argue that we should be in the European economic area, which allows freedom of movement throughout Europe. I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman about whether people qualify for habitual residency as a consequence of declaring self-employment, because I do not think that such a declaration qualifies people for habitual residency immediately.
I think that we should consider not just Croatia but whether we satisfy the conditions in chapter 23, but given that I cannot cite any examples of how we fail to satisfy those conditions, I will leave that to the Minister.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I shall not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I undertake to write to Members who have asked detailed questions, and to place copies of the letters in the Library of the House.
Many of the concerns that have been expressed about Croatian accession derive, understandably, from the experience of Romania and Bulgaria, but I think that there are important differences between the two instances. The earlier problems arose because difficult issues involving justice were not tackled in a systematic manner, upfront, at an early enough stage in the accession negotiations. The process that we are debating this evening was deliberately designed to enable us to learn from the failures of that experience. The decision that must be made by the European council in December—this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)—is not whether to admit Croatia to the European Union immediately, but whether by July 2013, on the basis of the evidence that we have so far and the intent declared by the Croatian leadership so far, Croatia will be in a position to move smoothly towards accepting all the responsibilities of EU membership.
Mr Lidington
Between the signing of the accession treaty and Croatia’s joining the European Union, we shall have the process of pre-accession monitoring that I have described, as well as the three safeguard clauses that are written into the treaty and are powerful mechanisms for ensuring that Croatia continues to make the progress that it has promised. Finally, all 27 members of the EU—including this Parliament—must vote to ratify Croatian accession, which in this instance means primary legislation. To inform its judgment on whether Croatia has met the standards required, the House should have access to the sequence of monitoring reports from the European commission and the reports from the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Therefore, when this House takes the decision on whether to ratify Croatian accession, it will have available to it the evidence about the progress that Croatia has still to make.
I believe that Croatian accession will provide enhanced economic opportunities for British business, as well as for the people and businesses of Croatia, and the political gain of seeing an important country in the western Balkans brought firmly within a European political system based on the rule of law and democratic rights. We have seen too much bloodshed and warfare in the Balkans to be content to shut them outside the door and see the problems of organised crime, people trafficking and illegal immigration persist indefinitely. The accession process is our best chance of getting those problems sorted to the benefit of us all. I believe that the way forward is that accepted by the Government in June this year, and I hope to have the support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2011, the European Union Common Position on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (Negotiation Chapter 23), relating to EU enlargement: Croatia; and supports the Government’s decision to agree the Draft Common Position at COREPER on 29 June and to adopt formally that agreed position at European Council on 12 July.
Daylight Saving Bill (Money)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Daylight Saving Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or by a government department, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
If I may, on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for consumer affairs, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her tireless work on the Bill. I also thank her for working constructively on a number of proposed amendments, which mean that I can now confirm the Government’s intention to support the Bill on an amended basis.
The House last debated the Bill on 3 December 2010 when, despite the Government’s Opposition, it received its Second Reading. Altering the clocks is something that we have thought about long and hard, and, as the Prime Minister has said, it is an issue that needs consensus right across the country. The amendments that we are seeking address our earlier concerns, including on the need for UK-wide consensus as to any change. Accordingly, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and to obtain the consent of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to any proposed trial. I wish to emphasise that the Government would not expect to introduce a trial if there was clear opposition in any part of the UK. A further amendment we propose is that the “independent commission” be changed to an “independent oversight group”, whose role would be to advise the Secretary of State on the preparation of any report.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Government’s interest in this legislation is welcome, even if a little late and even if forced by a Division in this House, which they opposed. Why has it taken them 11 months to bring this money resolution before the Chamber, given that the common practice in years past was that once the House had made a decision on the Second Reading of a Bill a money resolution would be introduced within two or three weeks?
Mr Prisk
As I said, we wanted to make sure that we gave this careful consideration, because this is a complex matter. [Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friends that I have seen this matter brought to this Chamber four separate times in the 10 years that I have been in this House, so it is right that we give it due consideration.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that very point?
Mr Prisk
Not at the moment, because I wish to conclude the point that I was in the middle of making—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. As we intend to seek to amend the Bill, it would have some relatively small expenditure implications. Our rough estimate of the amount of expenditure that would be needed is a figure of up to £750,000, which we think would be for the cost of researching and reporting on the potential benefits of trialling the advancing of clocks—that is obviously what the Bill seeks to achieve. Naturally, as it is also fair to point out, a subsequent proportional report may well be required on the monitoring and evaluation of any such experiment. The Bill, in its current form, would be likely to involve somewhat more expenditure than that, and the production of a report within three months of an Act being passed may well add to additional costs.
However, I must emphasise to the House that there is no guarantee that any trial advancement of the clocks will happen. We cannot rush that decision. A considered process is required, the starting point of which—this is the essence of the point that has been rightly made—is that there should be a proper robust assessment of the likely costs and benefits. On that basis, although the Government do not enter lightly into any expenditure, as I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the expenditure in this case is justified and I commend the motion to the House.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
It will not come as a surprise to anyone that I support wholeheartedly the Government’s request for money to be provided by Parliament in respect of the Daylight Saving Bill. First, I want to put on record my great thanks to the 94 Members of Parliament from across the Chamber who voted in support of its Second Reading nearly 12 months ago.
As the Minister said, this has not been a time of complete inactivity for the Bill. Negotiations have been ongoing between me and the Department to find amendments that would allow the Bill to progress while maintaining the spirit of the original. The Bill principally provides for a robust Government study of the likely effects, good or bad, of advancing our clocks forward by an hour and whether the nation as a whole would be better served by that. Tonight’s debate reflects the fact that the Bill will cost the Government money, but the potential benefits to the UK economy and the public purse could be enormous.
Proponents of the change argue that it could prevent more than 80 fatalities on the UK’s roads every year and create considerable economic benefits, including 80,000 extra jobs and £4.5 billion in new domestic tourism revenue alone. It might also reduce our heating and lighting bills, which would be extremely welcome at this time, increase participation in sport and recreation and help tackle our growing obesity epidemic, as the recent report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has suggested. It has also been argued that it could reduce crime and the fear of crime as well as improving quality of life, particularly for older people.
If such a simple measure as not turning our clocks back one autumn could really achieve all those benefits, I submit that it would be a scandal if the Government did not devote some resources—primarily civil service time and energy—to investigating it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady think that the benefits she has outlined would be spread equally throughout all parts of the United Kingdom?
Rebecca Harris
I do not know the answer to that question, which is why I am calling for the Government to do a comprehensive review. The proponents of the measure tell me that the benefits would be spread equally throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those on the road casualty figures.
Personally, I would try to claim that I am entirely agnostic on whether we should advance the clocks, although some might not believe me. My primary aim throughout has been to advance the debate through a review. The proposals in the Bill, or something similar, have been debated in the House repeatedly over the years. Some might say that the somewhat sterile arguments have been rehearsed again and again on both sides in what seems a little like Parliament’s own Groundhog day.
This time, I am pleased to say, the debate has advanced slightly further than usual, as the Bill passed Second Reading. I attribute that to the excellent support of the growing Lighter Later campaign in the country. The argument is also clearly less polarised than it used to be. Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Scotland have called very strongly for the measure and the traditional resistance of the farming community also seems to have subsided. The National Farmers Union Scotland now fully supports a study of the potential change.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am grateful that a Member of the Scottish National party has finally got around to joining us—perhaps they are on a different time from us. I met NFU Scotland very recently and it is clear that it supports not the idea of changing the time but a study to evaluate the issues. Is the hon. Lady clear on that point?
Rebecca Harris
I am entirely clear on that point and that is precisely what my Bill intends to do. NFU Scotland has also intimated that if the benefits in other parts of the country clearly outweighed the disbenefits to its members, it would not stand in the way.
In Committee, as the Minister mentioned, I and the Minister responsible for the Bill will table a number of amendments that will give the relevant Departments flexibility to minimise the financial burden of the Bill. They will also recognise our asymmetric devolution settlement. The power to change time zones is devolved to only Northern Ireland and not Scotland and Wales, so the devolved Administrations will be consulted at every step, including being asked for evidence for analysis that is specific to their geography and economy. The Bill will not and was never intended to force time change on anyone without consensus in the UK as a whole.
Although it seems to have taken a surprisingly long time for the Bill to reach this stage, I believe that the result will be a better and, I hope, more effective piece of legislation, which recognises the concerns that the Government and others have had about it whilst retaining and in some ways strengthening the analysis and available evidence. Given the possible benefits that I and others have identified, I believe that the measure warrants further investigation. I commend the motion to the House.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I rise to oppose the money resolution and I welcome this opportunity to state why I believe the Daylight Saving Bill is a complete misnomer. There is no daylight saving. All that is proposed in the Bill is that the hours of darkness be moved further into the morning. I am responding, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the arguments that have been put by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris).
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Lady makes the salient point that there will be no more daylight. What is actually happening is that people are being moved into the darkness. Clocks started off measuring time and ended up governing people’s lives, and people are going to find—as they found 30 or 40 years ago—that they will be living their lives in the early part of the day in darkness. When push came to shove at that time, the vote in this House was 366 votes to 81. That was not just Scottish Members but Members from all over the UK. Once they had experienced it, they would not have it again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps it would be timely for me to remind the House that we are not debating the Bill itself or the merits of the Bill. We are debating a money resolution to commission a study that will look at the evidence. I will rule Members out of order if they try to re-debate the Bill. That is not the purpose of this money resolution.
Miss McIntosh
I simply submit, Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to the points made by the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, that there would be no benefits and that the cost estimate in the money resolution of £750,000 is a conservative estimate that covers only the cost of the research. The Minister has not put to the House this evening what any potential costs to other Government Departments or local authorities would be. It is disingenuous to say that it would not put lives at risk to have darker, colder mornings and I regret that we are not having this debate on the money resolution in January or February when mornings are at their darkest. It is true that the evenings are getting lighter in January and February, but the mornings are most certainly getting darker.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree that the Minister was woefully lacking in not telling us what the full cost would be. However, does my hon. Friend agree that these are matters for debate in Committee and Third Reading and that it would be normal to let a money resolution go through so that the debate in principle could occur elsewhere?
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, but I have heard for the first time this evening that the Government support this Bill. My understanding was that that was not the position—and that was from the Prime Minister down. I think this is the first occasion on which the House has been informed that the Government now back the Bill on the basis of amended proposals in my hon. Friend’s Bill, which will now proceed to a Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The Bill is not having a Second Reading. This is a money resolution and the Bill has had its Second Reading. The content of the Bill has been discussed; this is a money resolution to provide for a study. I have already pointed that out to the House and to the hon. Lady and I would be grateful if Members would stay in order.
Miss McIntosh
I am most grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the money resolution going through this evening, the Bill will pass to the Committee stage. Were the House to reject the money resolution this evening, that would not prevent the Bill from proceeding to Committee. It would allow the Government to do a more thorough account of what the total costs would be. Perhaps the Minister responding at the conclusion of this little debate will address my particular concerns about what the cost will be to local authorities in England.
We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have called for evidence on the potential effects on rural communities and farms. The Minister and the House will accept that it is all very well to consult the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, as the Minister informed the House, but remote areas such as north Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumbria and other parts a long way from Essex and the south-east will not have the opportunity to be consulted.
We had the trial from 1968 to 1971. It was resoundingly rejected, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) so eloquently stated, and I do not believe that there is any compelling argument for subjecting the country to a further trial when, as we understand from the Government and as I entirely accept, we are living through a time of economic crisis. Will the Minister inform the House where the sum of £750,000 is proposed to come from in his departmental budget?
Mr Dodds
The hon. Lady is making a number of very good points. Is it not odd that after we have just had a debate on the winter fuel allowance and been told that there is absolutely no money available to pay our poorer pensioners to help them stay warm this winter, the Government are coming forward with £750,000 to fund a study on an issue on which they know there is no consensus across the United Kingdom?
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I do not want to see a north-south divide on the issue. I want the people of north Yorkshire to feel that their voice is being heard—[Interruption.] The Scots are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. I shall leave time for colleagues to contribute.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I shall keep my remarks brief as a number of Members on both sides of the House wish to speak.
I am open-minded about what we do ultimately, but I have some questions on the money resolution that I hope the Minister can address. As my colleague, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said, the Committee will shortly be taking evidence on the merits and demerits of switching the start of the day. Do the Government propose to wait until the Committee has had a chance to consider the evidence before embarking on a significant spend of money?
I see that the Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, are present to hear the debate—but I will not dwell on why there is an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and a Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Do the Government expect the Wales Office, the Scotland Office or the Northern Ireland Office to incur expenditure as part of the consultation? Will the Minister also confirm whether any of the devolved Administrations—the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies —would be expected to incur costs as part of the consultation that would be ongoing?
Mr MacNeil
If indeed there were any costs, surely if this measure originated in Westminster, those costs should be met at Westminster.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman teases me down an avenue which if I were to pursue and consider why the Scottish Parliament would seek even more money from this place when it is more than amply recompensed for the jobs that it is asked to do, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would robustly close me down.
I hope that the Minister can give some clarity. I hope that he has also heard today that this is not a Scotland versus England issue, but an argument across all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman was slightly late, but I appreciate that he was on different time.
Mr MacNeil
I checked the clock; I was two minutes late. But the substantial point is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not a north versus south or an England versus Scotland issue. Indeed, I feel quite an English nationalist in the midst of this debate, having to represent many of the good people of England who lived through the experiment of the late ’60s and early ’70s , and who write to me with their concerns looking for a voice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct when he says that this is not a north versus south or a Scotland versus England issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Very interesting. The hon. Gentleman should face the Chair when he speaks so that I can hear him. However, I heard what he said and now that he has made his point I would like Mr Docherty to return to the money resolution.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will stick to your guidance.
It is welcome that the Government are restricting the total sum that they believe they will spend. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that it is interesting that this afternoon Tory MPs voted against spending money on issues that really matter to people such as winter fuel payments. Will the Minister give a guarantee to the House that £750,000 will be the total expenditure of all Departments, not just his own, and the devolved Administrations, and that we will have a speedy and just resolution to the issue?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Minister in his reply say how much of the money that he has referred to relates to paragraph (1) of the motion and how much relates to paragraph (2)? In addition, as has just been said, may we have the total cost, not just the limited cost?
I would normally argue that we should vote specifically on the money resolution and how much it will cost the Exchequer, and if this related to a Government Bill, that would be quite in order. But this relates to a private Member’s Bill, and by tradition money resolutions automatically follow Second Reading. If a Member had managed to overcome all the hurdles and get enough Members here to pass a Bill on Second Reading, which I would probably not have voted for, they should have the right to go into Committee, have the Bill debated there and brought back to the House for a Third Reading, where, if Members so wished, they could defeat it. My concern about this money resolution is the length of time that it has taken from Second Reading to come to this House. It appears that we are looking at a new procedure here, where the Executive are trying to block Bills that they do not like. Apparently, they have now agreed changes to the Bill, so they like it, so they are bringing forward the money resolution. I believe that that is an abuse of Parliament.
There is another private Member’s Bill, whose promoter is my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which has had its Second Reading, but it has had no money resolution, so it cannot get into Committee. Because of the way the Government gerrymandered the number of days for private Members’ Bills in this Session, there is only one more private Members’ Bill after this Friday. Unless the money resolution is agreed tonight, there will be no chance for this Bill to get into Committee.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that there is no chance of the Bill getting through, but I know from a conversation I had earlier this evening with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) that, if the Committee stage cannot be dealt with by 20 January 2012, the hope is that another day will be made available for private Members’ business.
Mr Bone
That is rather a surprise to me. I am now tempted to vote against the money resolution in order to allow another day for private Members’ Bills, but that would not coincide with my principles. What we must decide tonight is very simple. The money resolution is not about the money that would be spent, but about whether there should be an almost automatic passage through the House for a private Member’s Bill that has gone through Second Reading. What I am seeing tonight is an attempt to block that, and I do not like it. I do not like the way the Government have used that to put pressure to change the Bill. The House should support the money resolution, but I think that we should be wary of what the Government have done.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It will take me less time to make my brief points than it takes to boil an egg. The argument is simple. It is about how best to align our lives to maximise the benefits of daylight. For most of us our lives are not aligned in that way; we get up after dawn and go to bed much later than sunset.
You spoke about studies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I conducted my own study when in opposition and recommend to the House my leaflet, “Time to Change the Clocks”, which goes through the benefits of daylight saving, particularly the studies that break down the benefits across the country. There would be a benefit in shifting the clocks. It would provide more time after work and school have finished. I recommend to the Minister and to the Bill Committee, if the Bill reaches Committee, that that aspect be brought into the study. For example, an additional 175 hours of daylight would be provided in Scotland if the clocks were moved—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to be very ingenious in getting back to the main points of the Bill in a debate on a money resolution. He said that he would make his points briefly. We are talking about the money resolution and the study. Can we concentrate on that and not re-enact the debate on the Bill itself?
Mr Ellwood
I give way to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
Mr Ellwood
I have now been advised to do so twice, so I will heed that advice. I am pleased to support the Bill. This is the furthest the proposal has ever got in Parliament since the original daylight saving experiment in the 1970s. I should add that that experiment was overturned not because the nation did not want it. The polls at the time were very much supportive of it. It was overturned because the farmers of the day—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I cannot understand what is complicated about this. We are dealing with a money resolution and I would appreciate it if Members stuck to that. Mr Dodds, I do not need any help and can manage it. Mr Ellwood, would you now refer to the money resolution and not to previous polls or debates unless they relate specifically to the money being spent?
Mr Ellwood
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is one of the subjects that people get very passionate about, which is why there is a tendency to wander off the subject. I will complete my contribution by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing this motion forward and hope that it will receive the support of the House today and the Bill will move on to Committee.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I wish to speak to the money resolution because I am concerned that we are seeing an abuse of the parliamentary process. It has been the tradition for many years in this place for a money resolution, which can be tabled only by Her Majesty’s Treasury, to be tabled within a fortnight or three weeks of a Bill passing Second Reading, particularly a private Member’s Bill. What we are talking about is private Members’ legislation, which is extremely precious to the individual Members concerned and very precious to the House as a whole.
The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) luckily came up in the ballot, she duly tabled her Bill and there was a most interesting debate on Second Reading on 3 December 2010, when despite the opposition of Her Majesty’s Government the legislation was passed by 92 votes to 10.
The context is that we are sitting through an extended Session of Parliament. Instead of there being an annual Session, we have a two-year Session, so 40 private Members’ Bills should have been tabled, but only 20 have been, because the Government have not allowed extra Friday sittings on which to table extra Bills. There has been only one ballot for private Members’ Bills, in which my hon. Friend was lucky to be successful, so private Members have had a reduced opportunity to table legislation.
I contend that the Government have used the extra time in the Session to delay the passage of my hon. Friend’s Bill, because it is now almost a full year since that Second Reading debate. My hon. Friend the Minister’s answer to my earlier intervention was not good enough, because the Government should not use this delay in tabling the money resolution to sort out their attitude to any particular Bill; they should table the money resolution to go along with the will of the House as expressed on Second Reading, and then sort out their attitude to the Bill prior to Committee. Members may not appreciate that a private Member’s Bill cannot proceed to Committee unless the money resolution is passed, so the Government are using that device to delay the progress of the Bill.
Mr Nuttall
Is it not the case that, if this Session had been of normal length, the Bill would have already fallen?
Mr Hollobone
That is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely perceptive intervention. In fact, the Government have used a whole year of this two-year Session to delay the Bill, thereby denying the House the scrutiny it needs to improve legislation. I cannot understand why the Government are so frightened of scrutiny, because the better that Back Benchers do their job, the better the legislation, and the better the reputation of the Government of the day.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman saying essentially that we should not be here tonight talking about the Bill, because it should have been dead and buried in the past year?
Mr Hollobone
That could have been an outcome, absolutely. We should not be here tonight, because we should have been here almost exactly a year ago. That is when the Government should have tabled this money resolution; then, the Bill would have proceeded into Committee; and on one of the subsequent private Members’ Fridays the hon. Gentleman and I could have debated its merits and demerits. The law would have been either passed or not by this stage, but Her Majesty’s Government have effectively taken a whole year out of the process, meaning that the legislation is right up against the wire.
There is a private Members’ Friday this coming Friday, but then there is only one other such Friday, 20 January 2011. The passage of the money resolution tonight means that there will not be time for the Bill Committee to sit before this Friday, so if the Bill is to go through Committee the only remaining Friday on which it can return to the House is 20 January. On that day, it will need to complete its Report and Third Reading if it is to make any progress, meaning that its subsequent passage through the House of Lords will be squeezed between the end of January and the beginning of April. That is going to be a rushed process if the Bill is to succeed.
My simple contention is this: whether someone is for or against the Bill, if the time and scope for the scrutiny of any legislation is reduced, it will probably not be as good as it otherwise might have been. There is absolutely no need for this process to have taken so long. I simply do not understand why it has taken Her Majesty’s Government almost 12 months to make up their mind—indeed, to change their mind—on the merits of this Bill.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) has, in effect, been destroyed because of the time that has been taken away from the consideration of it and the fact people will not have the opportunity to consider it? Is he also saying that there is a great danger the Bill will not become law and, as a result of the Government’s actions, the Bill has been utterly destroyed?
Mr Hollobone
I do not think the Bill has been destroyed because it still has a chance of passing through both Houses. The point I am trying to make is that if it does succeed in becoming an Act, it will only be by the skin of its teeth because there effectively is only one more sitting Friday for private Members’ Bills in this place.
Mr MacNeil
Therefore, if it is not utterly legally destroyed, it is morally destroyed.
Mr Hollobone
It has certainly not been the best use of parliamentary time in making sure that, as a piece of legislation, the Bill is as good as it could be. I am very worried that the Government are setting a precedent to abuse the private Members’ process because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, another Bill has passed its Second Reading in this place. The Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill was passed on a private Members’ sitting Friday on 10 June. The will of this House was that that Bill should have its Second Reading, but here we are five months later and the Government have not yet moved a money resolution for that Bill.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman has spoken for eight minutes. Is he determined that the Minister will not be able to respond to his comments?
Mr Hollobone
No. I am about to resume my place because I want to hear the Minister’s response, and I particularly want to hear him address this point. Why are the Government using money resolutions to delay the passage of Bills when they should be allowing the House to pass money resolutions at an early stage? The Government can then come back in Committee to debate the merits and demerits of the Bill. Would that not be a far better way for legislation to proceed in this place, rather than the abuse of the system that we are witnessing?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on her perseverance and determination in pursuing this matter over the past 12 months—and, indeed, during the period before she was drawn fourth in the ballot.
I do not want to detain the House long. I am conscious that there is not a great deal of time left and that we all want to hear from the Minister. Although I voted against curtailing the Second Reading debate—and I remind the House that it was curtailed—I did vote for the Bill to proceed on Second Reading. I, along with many others—indeed, millions of people outside the House—have been waiting for the money resolution finally to move its way up the Order Paper to be debated.
On the issue of money, may I ask the Minister to explain in his winding up whether the figure of £750,000 is an estimate? If so, what is that estimate based on? What analysis has been made of the cost of the trial that was held back in the 1970s, and how that has been used to inform the present-day estimate? In addition, has any assessment has been made of whether any work that was done at that time is still of value today? I reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on how the cost of the trial is to be split between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Finally, in the seconds remaining, I point out that, with inflation running at 5% and an estimated cost of £750,000, the delay has already cost £37,500. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions.
Mr Prisk
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the money, £750,000 is the estimate that I made clear in my opening remarks, and that is the figure that relates to the benefit analysis with this motion. I believe that the motion should be supported by the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Boundary Changes (Edmonton)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to present—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps, Mr Love, you could resume your seat so that we can wait until Members have left the Chamber quietly.
Mr Love
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to present this petition on the new boundaries for the Edmonton constituency. My constituents are outraged that the boundary commissioners have ganged up on Edmonton, proposing changes that try to cross the natural barrier of the River Lea, which is over 1 mile wide in parts and separates the two distinct parts of the new constituency. There are no direct transport links across the new constituency, and this undermines existing community ties. My constituents are petitioning the House to make time for a debate on the proposed changes to the boundaries of the constituency of Edmonton.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of Edmonton and others,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the constituency of Edmonton, as the Petitioners believe that the proposed changes will undermine existing community ties and declares that the Petitioners believe that the integrity of Edmonton should be maintained through links with other adjacent communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make time for a debate on the proposed changes by the Boundary Commission for England to the constituency of Edmonton.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000984]
Immigration (Stranraer/Cairnryan)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I am pleased that I have managed to secure this debate this evening. That said, I am disappointed that it has needs this action to try to secure answers from the Minister. That, along with a number of freedom of information requests, has meant I have had to bring my concerns to the Floor of the House.
My concerns are about one of the most irresponsible cuts this Government have imposed—the withdrawal of UK Border Agency funding from the police ports unit protecting the Galloway ports in my constituency. At the end of this week, I will be attending the official opening of Stena Line’s new terminal building on Loch Ryan. This has replaced its old base in the heart of Stranraer, where ferries have crossed the Irish sea for 150 years. There is also a ferry port operated by P&O just a few miles further round the loch, in the village of Cairnryan.
The Galloway ports are the second busiest ports in the UK, and they have more immigration issues than anywhere else in Scotland. Even though they are entry points to the UK mainland, they are internal ports and a well-known route for illegal immigrants seeking to gain access, and for organised criminals to smuggle contraband goods or illegal drugs. It is well recognised that those last issues were a regular source of funding for terrorist activity in the past.
The chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary has described the ports as a
“nexus point for illegal immigration”.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been a champion for Dumfries and Galloway for the 13 or 14 years that he has been a Member. I am disappointed that not a single Scottish National party Member has bothered to come to support his case tonight. He has mentioned the chief constable. Will he say whether there have been any further cuts recently to the number of police officers in the region, from which the ports might have suffered?
Mr Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to that point.
The chief constable’s comments did not stop the Government deciding last summer completely to withdraw the UKBA funding that paid for three officers in Dumfries and Galloway police’s ports unit. That funding had been put in place in 2006. A former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), visited the Stena facility with me early last year and agreed that we needed to increase the resources to ensure security. She was astonished by what she witnessed.
Just a few weeks after the general election, the position was turned on its head and the Government announced the complete withdrawal of the UKBA funding. Clearly what had changed was that the Government had embarked upon deep cuts, whatever the price. That was confirmed by the UKBA’s regional director for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Phil Taylor, who admitted in a letter to the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary that the cuts at the Galloway ports were due to the
“government’s requirement to bear down on the cost of the public sector”.
It is pertinent to note that the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch was based on witnessing at first hand the difficulties at the ports. The decision to terminate the UKBA funding at the ports was decided without anyone having the decency to visit the facility to witness how the system operated. In fact, no Minister, not even the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who represents part of the region—I appreciate the fact that he has turned up this evening—has visited the Galloway ports, despite imposing major cuts on them.
I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). It is worth mentioning the role of the SNP Scottish Government in this. Although they have been quick to join the chorus of criticism of the UK Government’s cuts, they themselves cut the equivalent of 14.5 officers from the ports unit over the previous couple of years. The crocodile tears from the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, who visited the ports to discuss security issues yesterday, are shameful in the extreme. The truth is that the Galloway ports have suffered from a double whammy of cuts, first from the SNP Government in Edinburgh and then from the Conservative-led coalition Government.
Today I call on the UK Government to consider either reinstating the UKBA financial support to the Dumfries and Galloway ports unit or providing UKBA staff at the ports. The case is overwhelming and I want to highlight three areas. First, the Government must take heed of their own national security strategy, which identified a
“significant increase in the levels of terrorism relating to Northern Ireland”
as a tier 1, or priority, risk to the country. It makes no sense to recognise an increased threat and then to essentially downgrade the security at the route on to the mainland through the Galloway ports.
Secondly, Dumfries and Galloway constabulary has revealed that the scale of the illegal immigration is worse than had been measured previously. Indeed, a UKBA study earlier this year found that the number of illegal immigrants detected at the ports had rocketed by 65% since the previous year. The Government clearly decided to cut the resource based on an estimation of the number of illegal immigrants passing through the ports. Surely the Minister must concede that if the facts change, so must the conclusions. The most recent figures show that the number of immigration cases between 1 September and 10 November increased by 20% compared to the same period last year, and that whereas in the past one in every six people who were stopped were non-EU citizens, that has now increased to one in five.
Thirdly, the cut at the Galloway ports was made with the assurance that greater effort would be put in at the Northern Ireland end. That approach has so far failed. In September, Dumfries and Galloway police told me that
“a lack of checks/coverage at the Northern Ireland side…has led to more offenders getting through the Northern Ireland ports undetected.”
It is clear that the UKBA failed properly to plan how the ports would cope with the withdrawal of the funding support. New procedures came into place only in September this year, 10 months after the cuts. That should have been done before any decision was taken but it was not, because the cuts were rushed through in a matter of weeks. The consequence is that the Government not only reduced security at the ports but left us exposed for almost a year as they decided how to try to compensate for that.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate, especially following last week’s debate on immigration. Is it not the case that the Government did not understand, and still do not understand, the importance of people coming into the UK from Ireland, and how easy it is to do that? Will that situation not be exacerbated at the new terminal, which is expected to take in far more people through that same gateway? Unless the number of staff there is increased, there will be a real problem in future.
Mr Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I said earlier, the previous Immigration Minister came to see the site and was quite shocked by what she witnessed. My plea all along has been that before the Government withdraw the funding, somebody should come to have a look. According to Stena’s figures, we are expecting a potential 50% increase in traffic. Thankfully, the Scottish Government Justice Minister has decided that he will look favourably on another four officers, but that will simply take us back to a situation that the chief constable sees as having been sustainable; it does not take account of the additional traffic that there will be.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. As well as the issue of terrorism, does he accept that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the fact that people can so easily enter the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom across the border with no real check, as a result not only of cuts but of a deliberate policy?
Mr Brown
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his concern. This is a serious issue, and I hope that even if the Minister cannot give us answers this evening, he will give the matter serious consideration and take the time to come to have a look at what we are experiencing.
One of the most damning aspects to emerge from the situation is the revelation that no one has any idea how many illegal immigrants simply disappear after being stopped at the ports. The police have no authority to seize and arrest any of them. Two weeks ago the Home Secretary was under fire for immigration failings over the summer. The scandal is that she has known for more than a year that there is no way to keep track of illegal immigrants entering through the Galloway ports, and she has not done a thing about it.
Upon detecting illegal immigrants at the ports, Dumfries and Galloway police issue them with an instruction and an appointment to appear at a UKBA office in Glasgow or Manchester. They then release the offenders, in the hope they will keep their promise. That is shockingly lax. If someone has entered the country illegally, are they really going to hand themselves in the next morning?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Chamber tonight. Obviously Stranraer and Cairnryan are critical, but there also has to be a domino effect. Perhaps it is time to go back to where people come in. Does he feel that the Minister should consider how he can curtail immigration from the Republic through to Northern Ireland and into Scotland?
Mr Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that there appears to be a weak link, because people can get easy access to Northern Ireland. People can get on a bus in Belfast, and the next stop could well be Birmingham or London. It is as simple as that. The Immigration Minister told me in correspondence that it would be too expensive to find out how many illegal immigrants had absconded on their way to a UKBA office. How on earth can the Government make those cuts and then not monitor the effectiveness of the processes in place?
Dumfries and Galloway police have told me of an alarming case of two illegal immigrants. They were detained in Belfast overnight and told to report to the UKBA the following morning, but instead were detected disembarking at Stranraer after crossing on the ferry. Despite flouting the rules once, the only course of action available to the local police was to release them with instructions to attend the UKBA office in Glasgow. As the police said:
“Do we honestly think, given this course of conduct, that they would have any intention of attending?”
The Minister needs to tell us why he is not doing anything to close this massive loophole in our border security. The Government have turned a blind eye throughout to worries about security at the ports. The Prime Minister told me during Prime Minister’s questions on 24 November last year that he would
“look very carefully…to make sure that the system is working.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 260.]
Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the Prime Minister followed that up, or whether, as I suspect, they were nothing more than empty words.
In a letter to me dated 4 January this year, the Immigration Minister promised personally to review the security arrangements at the end of February. Perhaps he could tell me today what he found, because I can find no record of his review. The only study of the arrangements since the Government’s cut was carried out by the UKBA and published in August this year. The scope was extremely narrow, and Dumfries and Galloway police have confirmed that there was no contact from any Government Minister. Both the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister promised me they would look at this issue personally. To the best of my knowledge, neither has done so. I hope the Minister will today commit to a full independent review of the arrangements in place at the Galloway ports.
The Government’s first duty is to the safety and security of citizens. The removal of financial support for ports police from Galloway ports is putting that at risk simply to save money. The Minister has serious questions to answer today. Will he tell us why he ignored the concerns of Dumfries and Galloway police and pressed ahead with that irresponsible cut? Is he still unable to tell the House how many illegal immigrants disappeared following release after detection at the Galloway ports? Given that we are just scratching the surface of the illegal immigration problems at the ports, will the Government concede that the case for the reversal of the cut in UKBA funding is now overwhelming? I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) on securing this debate. I know how strongly he feels and I will deal with the specific matter of the common travel area and Ireland in a minute. However, I must first tell him that it is slightly bizarre for him to say that he was expecting a review, that a review was done by UKBA, and that that somehow had nothing to do with me. I am the Minister responsible for UKBA, so if it does a review, it has something to do with me. That is how these things are done.
Damian Green
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman overran his time slightly, so I will not be able to take interventions from him—he has had a good go.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, and as I need to make explicitly clear, Stranraer and Cairnryan are domestic ports. Those western Scottish sea ports are not designated ports within the meaning of immigration legislation. They are not international ports of entry such as Dover. The ferry routes between Northern Ireland and Scotland are domestic UK services. Legally and in immigration control terms, they are no different from ferry services between the Scottish mainland and the western isles or between Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. There are no international passenger services between Stranraer or Cairnryan and any foreign country. We must be clear that we are talking about people moving within the UK; we are not talking about people coming into the UK.
I am sure that, beneath the rhetoric, the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be wholly inappropriate to introduce passport controls at domestic UK ports. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Journeys within the United Kingdom are not subject to border controls, and nor should they be. Our intelligence shows that the route is subject to abuse. The UKBA knows that some come here with the intention of flouting the immigration laws, and that those here illegally deliberately move around the UK to avoid detection. That is why we work closely to clamp down on those who come here and abuse the system.
The UKBA works closely with the police in Dumfries and Galloway, and I welcome that close working relationship. The agency is also working closely with the Irish Garda to tackle people who start in the Republic of Ireland and then try to enter Northern Ireland illegally. Relations with the Republic of Ireland are strong. Together we are working to secure and strengthen the whole of the common travel area and to narrow the opportunities to exploit it, as well as reinforcing the excellent co-operation that already exists between the UKBA and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service in relation to the protection of the common travel area. Of course, I recognise the importance of that, and we are working hard to ensure that the CTA becomes a stronger border area as a whole.
I recognise that we are in difficult economic times and that changes to the structure of the UKBA may have been unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman. His concerns about last year’s decision to remove UKBA police funding to Stranraer and Cairnryan have been noted—he has made them clear in the intervening months—and we appreciate the impact that it has had on the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. As he made clear, however, that came with a much greater reduction in funding from the Scottish Government of the force’s counter-terrorism work.
Dumfries and Galloway is Scotland’s smallest police force. I know that Chief Constable Pat Shearer has made his concerns public, as the hon. Gentleman said. Pat Shearer said last September that cuts in staff numbers meant that the force was going
“closer and closer to the bone”,
and he believed that there was a limit to how far cuts to the constabulary could go without adversely affecting police performance.
As we all know, policing in Scotland and its funding are devolved matters. The police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law and maintain the peace in Scotland. Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, like other forces across the UK, carries out a range of work, and it is its decision—the chief constable’s decision—how its prioritises and manages that work. The UKBA officials work with it to tackle irregular migration. Like the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, the UKBA must spend public money carefully. The agency therefore took the decision to realign its deployment of seconded police. That decision affected seconded officers throughout the UK.
It was reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to ask what changed. When the UKBA began funding police officers in Stranraer, it had a limited presence in Northern Ireland. At that time, officers had to be deployed from other areas to conduct operations in Northern Ireland. In July 2009, the agency formed a new local immigration team in Belfast. From its offices in Drumkeen house, the UKBA now conducts a wide range of immigration services. A key part of that is tackling immigration crime. The UKBA therefore has more officers than ever before on the ground in Northern Ireland tackling irregular migrants.
The UKBA operates right across the United Kingdom, so it is right that we consider where best across the UK to place our resources to tackle illegal immigration. Tackling abuse of the immigration system is fundamental to the work of the UKBA, and our enforcement work produces real results. This year, a targeted summer campaign involved more than 600 operations across the country resulting in 557 arrests. Some 65 prosecutions have been initiated so far, and there have been 22 successful prosecutions.
I shall touch on specific examples of immigration enforcement work at the western Scotland and Northern Ireland ports. In September, an immigration fraudster was jailed for 18 months after being caught with a bundle of fake identities. Fayyaz Ahmed was arrested at Belfast docks in February while trying to get on the Belfast-to-Stranraer ferry. He was found to have three computer memory sticks and two mobile phones containing more than 700 false and fraudulently altered identity documents. His case, which involved a sophisticated criminal operation, underlines what we all know: that some migrants will seek to abuse our immigration controls. It also highlights the importance of the work that our team does on the ground in Northern Ireland.
Intelligence shows that the majority of illegal migrant traffic comes from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland, and then on to Scotland. It therefore makes sense to transfer the responsibility for identifying those illegal migrants to the border agency’s local immigration team in Northern Ireland, where UK Border Agency staff replicate the work already done at the Northern Irish airports. The agency has more substantial resources on site in Northern Ireland, which is more conveniently located to service the ports and enable the agency to be more operationally effective. The UK Border Agency’s immigration officers in Northern Ireland therefore check the status of passengers arriving from or leaving for Great Britain, targeting routes shown to be most at risk.
In the medium term, UKBA resources will shoulder more of the work of dealing with immigration offenders using that route, which will ease the pressure on Dumfries and Galloway police. For now, early results suggest that, with appropriate levels of co-operation, smart deployments and an increased ratio of detections by the UKBA in Northern Ireland, further improvements can be made in the detection rates of immigration offenders using the Galloway ports as a transit route between Northern Ireland and Scotland. In the long run, the new arrangements, with more effective controls on those routes, will lead to an overall reduction in immigration arrest rates and minimise the burden on Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. An early review of UKBA operations found that an increasing number of immigration offenders are being detected in Northern Ireland, which happens before they can travel to Scotland by ferry or the rest of the UK by air.
Mr Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I wholly agree with him—I have here the UKBA report on the common travel area. Although more effort is being made in Northern Ireland—rightly so, because a commitment was given on that—and although more people are being detected, the reality is that more people are still coming on to the mainland through the Galloway ports. I think I mentioned this earlier, but we have all underestimated how serious the problem is; I hold my hand up to that as well. More needs to be done.
Damian Green
Of course, more always needs to be done, on every route. However, what I hope I am explaining to the House and the hon. Gentleman is what is being done and why I believe that the changes being made—which focus the operation more in Northern Ireland, which is the source of the problem in his constituency—are a more effective long-term way of tackling illegal immigration and, as a beneficial side effect, reducing the stress on the Dumfries and Galloway police.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful for what the Minister has said about what is being done in Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right. However, he also said that the source of the problem was Northern Ireland, but is not the real problem people coming in from the Irish Republic? There are checks at the border at the ports and the airports, but what about the illegal immigration into Northern Ireland? What is being done to tackle that problem?
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I am in close negotiations with my Irish counterpart to ensure that the common travel area becomes more effective, as I have explained. We need to help the Irish Government to strengthen their border, because, as we are in a common travel area, to some extent their border is obviously our border. The closer we can co-operate and the stronger we can make that border, the better it will be.
Let me demonstrate what has happened. If we look at UKBA work, as seen in the review into working arrangements, we find that impressive results have been produced both in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In just four months—January to April—175 immigration offenders were detected at Northern Irish sea and airports and at west of Scotland sea ports. That is a 200% increase on the same period in 2010, which suggests we are doing much better at getting to the root of the problem.
We have produced and agreed a 10-point plan between the Border Agency and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to improve co-ordination and liaison. The plan will cover a wide range of aspects, including the systematic sharing of intelligence, joint tasking and co-ordination of deployments, which optimises coverage at the highest-risk times at Northern Ireland sea ports and reduces the number of immigration offenders who need to be processed by the police in Scotland. Again, that is a double benefit. There are now also monthly operational and quarterly strategic meetings to share results, learn from experiences, identify and introduce best practice, and review the progress of current arrangements. The joint objective over the next six months is to introduce all these measures fully and to refine them, to deliver the majority of detections and detentions in Northern Ireland and to reduce Dumfries and Galloway constabulary time and the work needed to deal with immigration suspects and offenders encountered at the Scottish sea ports.
This debate is particularly timely, as I know that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice chaired a meeting yesterday at the new port of Loch Ryan where he met David Ford, the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister of Justice, as well as representatives of both Scottish and Northern Irish police forces and the regional operation leads from the UKBA. I understand that it was a very constructive meeting, and I think it is important to recognise that the working relationship at the operational level among the Border Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary goes a long way to make our ports an unwelcoming place for criminals.
Of course, all police forces come across illegal immigrants—
Petition
Teachers' Pension Scheme
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Horse Racing (Funding)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, or the Minister for horse racing, as he is known in Newmarket, in his place.
I applied for this debate because the future funding of horse racing remains in a parlous condition. Although the Government have shown willingness to deal with the matter—no one doubts the Minister’s personal commitment—more action is needed.
Horse racing has, for centuries, been part of our national heritage. It has been interwoven in our national life from the time King Charles II took Nell Gwynne to Newmarket for a month in the spring and a month in the autumn and races were used to keep up the quality of bloodstock during times of peace. The current exhibition of early actresses at the National Portrait Gallery shows the beauty and other attractions of Nell Gwynne, so I understand the desire of King Charles II to spend two months on the plains of Suffolk to enjoy all the riches on offer.
The sport was about not just bloodstock but high entertainment, and so it is today. Racing is the second most watched sport after football in this country. It contributes more than £3 billion to our economy, and employs more than 100,000 people, 5,000 of them in and around racing in Newmarket. None the less, racing’s finances are in jeopardy. In 2010, the number of foals born in the UK fell by a sixth. The number of horses in training has been falling consistently over the past three years. The root of the issue is a breakdown in funding. The most important part of the funding for the industry is the levy—the money that betting pays to racing in return for the races on which people bet—and as we know, it has fallen dramatically.
The changes in the way that people bet and the move to more and more online gambling are at the heart of the matter. Racing has moved into a modern world and outstripped the outdated and outmoded outfit that has determined its funding—the levy system. Prize money has almost halved since 2009, dropping from around £65 million to £34 million this year. Prizes are in freefall compared with our nearest competitors. At Newmarket, a win in a middle-ranking race will net around £6,500; at Longchamp the equivalent is more than £21,000. Across the country, prize money has fallen by about a third over a couple of years.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for smaller race courses, such as Ripon in my constituency, the issue of prize money and its value is a major prohibitor to attracting good races, and for smaller race courses that is one of their biggest challenges?
Matthew Hancock
If the problem is serious for Newmarket, it is even more serious for many smaller race courses, especially if the prize money hardly pays for the diesel to get the horse to the race. If a horse comes third or fourth, the owner’s costs are not even covered, and if an owner’s costs are not covered even when their horse wins, one of the great incentives for owning a horse is removed. Of course people own race horses for all sorts of reasons, not least the glamour of the winning enclosure and the thrill of their horse being the first to cross the line. None the less, it is important for an owner at least to have the dream that they may make money from their horse. People who own race horses are normally realistic about the fact that they may not get back their outlay, but they should at least have the hope that they can. The fall in prize money is central to a fall in the attractiveness of owning and breeding race horses.
The fall in prize money reflects the fall in the value of the levy itself—from £111 million in 2003 to £60 million in 2010. Will the Minister assure us that we can make the changes that are necessary to put the funding on a sustainable footing; that in the sale of the Tote there are commitments to racing that will be fulfilled; and that the money that used to come directly from the Tote and will now come through the deal agreed during its sale will still happen? The Tote, although smaller in cash terms, is another important part of the funding of racing.
Some progress has been made. It looks as though last year’s yield on the levy will come in at around £65 million, well below the target of £71.4 million, which in itself was too low. This year’s target is marginally higher, and it has been underpinned by a guarantee from three of the big bookmakers. The Levy Board will spend an extra £5 million in 2012, £4 million of which will go in prize money. Welcome as such a move is, it is merely damage limitation. A long-term solution to the levy needs to be put in place, not least because of the adversarial nature of the levy. Instead of the racing industry and bookmakers working together to provide a product that is great for the punter and good for racing, they have an adversarial relationship, which needs to be addressed.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate on the future of horse racing. Does he agree that the most important factor is a level playing field between onshore and offshore betting operators to fund the future of British horse racing?
Matthew Hancock
I was just about to come to exactly that point, so the hon. Gentleman is prescient. There is consensus that the system is broken and needs to be reformed. We have no God-given right in Britain to some of the best racing in the world.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the levy is going up, which must be welcomed by everybody. Does he not agree though that that is only half the story and that one of the other major costs for bookmakers is the media rights that they pay? After 2012, those will increase by £50 million a year, which is a huge windfall for the racing industry. It will even benefit race courses such as the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith).
Matthew Hancock
I am not surprised that the amount being paid by bookies for picture rights is going up, not least because of the attractiveness of the sport and the amount of interest in racing. Of course the rise is good news but picture rights are only part of the story, because when a punter bets on a race the bet is based on the racing product that underpins it, so picture rights alone cannot be the answer to the question of how to fund horse racing.
I come now to what will be the core of my argument today and the core of the question that I will put to the Minister. During the last decade or so, what has been central to the fall in the value of the levy is the removal from British shores of almost all the big bookmakers. Of the 20 biggest bookies, only two are now domiciled in the UK. As I said earlier, that change reflects changes in technology that mean we can bet more online and over the phone. However, we must recognise the change and deal with it, if we are to put matters right.
The fact that bet365 and Coral are still onshore is great news, but we should not be in a position where we have to be grateful to bookies for staying onshore. The idea that we should thank people for paying the tax that they are due to pay is not one that we apply anywhere else in the tax system. In fact, everywhere else in the tax system we are pretty firm if people do not pay their tax. Although I am grateful that those two bookmakers—bet365 and Coral—have stayed onshore, many independent bookmakers cannot move offshore; they do not have the capacity to do so, as they are too small. Consequently there is not a level playing field even within the gambling industry to ensure that there can be fair competition in gambling.
The impact of that offshoring is felt across the board. There is a loss of millions in levy contributions and a loss to the taxpayer, estimated at £62 million a year, in lost betting duty. I would be very interested to find out whether the Minister has an updated estimate of the amount of tax that is lost in betting duty because of the number of offshore bookmakers.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I have been told to thank my hon. Friend on behalf of Uttoxeter race course, which is in my constituency, where his work on behalf of the racing industry has become legendary. People at Uttoxeter have asked me to pass on their personal thanks.
My hon. Friend raises the very important issue of betting going offshore. Obviously we live in a global world and the internet makes it incredibly difficult for us to regulate betting offshore. However, many offshore bookmakers still advertise in the UK; in magazines, on billboards and on the side of bus stops. Does he agree that one of the ways we could get them to understand the consequences of not being based in the UK is to regulate their advertising in those kinds of media?
Matthew Hancock
I think that the consensus in the House on the need to make such reforms is demonstrated by the fact that all the interventions so far have anticipated the next page of my speech. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because dealing with that offshore loophole is the first thing that we need to do if we are to sort out the problems of financing the racing industry.
When I talk to individual bookmaking companies that are offshore, each of them argues that they would really like to be onshore and that the only reason they are not onshore is that all their competitors are offshore. I have worked in a small business and I understand that argument. If somebody else has taken a chunk of tax and levy contributions out of their cost base, of course others will want to do the same.
I have a solution, which is to create a level playing field; let us have everybody onshore and paying their fair share of tax and levy contributions. The solution that the Minister put forward in July was a neat and quite simple one. Changing the designation of the location of a bet from where the bookie is based to where the punter is based would turn what at the moment is legitimate tax avoidance into tax evasion. Because of the internet, we might not necessarily catch 100% of bets by making that change, but we could capture the vast majority. All the major bookmakers who want to advertise or do other business in the UK will come onshore because they would not want to break the law by not paying tax and levy on the bets placed with them. Most bookmakers are good corporate citizens, so a change such as this would ensure that all the major players would come onshore. That would not only help with the funding of racing, on which bookmakers’ own business models depend, but with the lack of a level playing field, which is a scourge of independent and small bookmakers.
Philip Davies
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. May I suggest a more conservative approach? I understand that he has great influence with the Chancellor. Has he thought about persuading the Chancellor to reduce the rate of tax on those offshore businesses, which will tempt them back onshore? As a keen economist, I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that 5% of something is far better than 15% of nothing.
Matthew Hancock
I do not believe in tempting people to pay tax; I believe in ensuring that people pay tax. I myself am not tempted to pay tax, but I have to pay tax. Indeed, the tax is taken out of my wages before I even see it. People across the country would not understand a system in which we merely tempt people to pay tax; we need to insist that people pay tax.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. As he suggests, if all bookmakers came back onshore, the amount that went into the racing industry through tax and the levy would be substantially higher and it may well be that at the same time we could look at the rates of tax being applied to bookmakers. Indeed, there is a Treasury consultation on that very point at the moment. I am sure that he and others will make a contribution to that process, and no doubt the Chancellor will listen to all Conservative Back Benchers equally.
The argument that the Minister made in July in his written ministerial statement, and in response to a question that I put on the Floor of the House, concentrated on widening the regulatory net and ensuring that gambling regulations cover all people in the UK who make bets; it focused on the regulatory aspect. Of course I support the argument that the appropriate regulatory net should cover all people gambling in the UK and the principles behind that argument, but expanding the reach of regulation is not as urgent for the financing of the racing industry as closing the tax and levy loophole. I urge the Minister to look at the issue from the perspective of fair and appropriate funding of horse racing rather than the wider changes to the coverage of gambling regulation that he seeks. I am sure that people will support him in both those aims but one is urgent and the other is important, and the distinction between urgency and importance is one that I am sure he recognises every time he opens his ministerial red box.
I am very pleased that the Treasury is conducting a consultation, but I want to ask the Minister some questions about how we will make the progress that is necessary and how we will turn tax avoidance into tax evasion through legislation. A tax change and a financial change to the levy could be made through the Finance Bill, and Finance Bills happen regularly. If that means that we cannot make the wider regulatory changes that the Minister seeks, so be it. The urgent task is on the financial side, because it is only when we tackle the offshore problem that we can go on to make the broader changes in the levy that many people want to see; indeed, I think that there is cross-party consensus about the need for broader changes in the levy.
With bookies back onshore and paying their share, we can finally establish the long-term funding structure that is both sustainable and fair to everybody involved in racing, including bookmakers, and it could improve the relationship between racing and bookmakers.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend has used a key word, which is “sustainable”. As he rightly said, one can understand the business reason for bookmakers going offshore in the short term, but such a number of bookmakers going offshore is ensuring their own destruction and the destruction of the industry on which they survive, so this is bigger than paying tax onshore—it is about ensuring that the industry, and therefore bookmaking itself, continues.
Matthew Hancock
Indeed. Bookmakers tend to value having racing on regularly so that there can be product in their shops—races on which people can bet. Around the country, having regular racing and a full fixture list is good not only for the paying punters who want to go, but for bookies, and it is important to ensure that that can be appropriately financed, because the number of fixtures cannot be increased without increased support. Ensuring that prize money per race returned to a reasonable level would provide the impetus for people to own the horses on which the rest of the industry depends. There is a chain of causation through the fixture list and the prize money, and ensuring that the appropriate levy is paid is critical.
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am going to refer not to the next page of his speech, but to the first one. He mentioned the fall in the number of foals produced in the UK. The levy is not simply about betting in betting shops or prize money at race courses; it is about the British breeding industry and the support necessary to maintain it. I hope he will assure everybody in the Chamber that he is also supportive in that direction.
Matthew Hancock
Absolutely. On that point and more broadly, I declare a very wide interest: I am heavily supported in Newmarket, including by people from the breeding fraternity, or sorority—there are an awful lot of extremely impressive men and women involved in breeding—but this is also about racing welfare, which is supported by the levy. There is a much broader point, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to put that on the record. This is about not only the flow from prize money into the activities of horsemen, but the direct payments from the levy system to breeding, welfare, veterinary research and other important associated aspects of the sport, and indeed ensuring that the regulation of racing is adequately funded to guarantee high-quality and well-regulated racing. I do not want to dwell on that point, but I am sure that those of us with an interest in debates on the matter have noticed it over the past couple of months.
Julian Smith
If the Minister got his skates on, how quickly could the change happen? We have talked about Finance Bills, but what would his optimal timetable be for this tax change to happen?
Matthew Hancock
The proposed change is relatively simple. It would require primary legislation, but take only a couple of clauses in a Bill. The legislation would be fairly simple because it would change the designation of where a bet was and everything else would flow from that. That is the foundation of unlocking all the other changes for which there is cross-party support.
I urge the Minister to act. It is rare for the Government to have in front of them a proposal that is popular, important, timely, simple, money-raising and necessary. Since the proposal has all those attributes—and indeed, as we have discovered today, cross-party support—I ask him to act with the greatest possible speed. He cares deeply about horse racing, the people of Newmarket care about horse racing, and the country cares about the future of horse racing, so let us make this change and put the finances of horse racing on the sustainable footing that they deserve.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. I want to start the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, so I hope that Members will time their contributions appropriately.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this important debate. I have Ayr race course in my constituency and, as the only Scottish Member here today, I think that I can confidently speak on behalf of all Scottish Members with race courses in their constituencies.
I want to start by emphasising to the Minister the significant role that Ayr race course has in the Ayrshire economy. It is important because of local jobs—we have heard about the many people employed throughout the UK in racing in its many forms—and in relation to tourism. Ayrshire is a very beautiful tourist area and the race course contributes greatly to encouraging people to come to the area. Ayr race course is also an innovative and enthusiastic local business, with a strong community focus. It is the leading race course in Scotland, with the Ayr gold cup and the Scottish grand national among its annual fixtures. The race course does not just sit back and wait for funding in the form of a levy or anything else; it has built a business and has greatly diversified over the past few years, outwith race days. For example, it holds popular Christmas parties every year, which are a profitable enterprise. I have watched with great pleasure as Ayr race course has changed from a run-down facility, lacking investment and vitality, to one of our most popular local attractions. That is a credit to the management and the work force, and I wish to put on record my thanks for everything they contribute to our local area. The race course is well supported by local people.
Having said all that, since I have been a Member of the House, I cannot remember a time when levy negotiations have been anything other than a problem. Every year, with monotonous predictability, we can look forward to protracted, unsatisfactory, adversarial negotiations that go to the brink and do not achieve a positive outcome. It has been blindingly obvious for some time that the levy mechanism does not work, is outdated and no longer fit for purpose. I must be frank: despite the best efforts of the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who took a very keen interest in this matter and always tried to be helpful, I feel that the previous Government could have done more. They should have grasped the nettle. From the debate so far, it seems that more progress is being made. I hope I am right in saying that and look forward to the Minister confirming it.
I can assure the House that the lack of progress was not due to lack of trying on the part of every Member with a race course in their constituency. We set up Friends of Scottish Racing as a cross-party group, and we try to use every opportunity to highlight areas of concern alongside the UK Parliament’s all-party group on horse racing. It has already been mentioned that the levy is not the only area of concern, but it is of central importance because it undoubtedly puts race courses at serious risk. The fact that funding has reduced so drastically is rendering the sport uneconomic. We are reaching crisis point and something urgently needs to be done. I do not wish to be over-dramatic, and I am very aware that the racing community would prefer a more collaborative approach, with partnership working, but the current system militates against that and it is imperative that a new funding mechanism is found.
As a Scottish MP, I also wish to emphasise the difficulties faced by those in the north in attracting owners prepared to incur the extra costs and travelling time of bringing horses and jockeys further afield. We have already talked about attracting business to race courses, but in Scotland we have a particular problem because of the geography, and it is undermining if prize money does not reflect that effort. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, if people’s costs are not covered, they do not feel that it is worth the effort.
Andrew Griffiths
Does the hon. Lady share my concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) about the fact that the UK has now dropped to 38th in the world rankings for prize money, and that prize money has halved in two years? That is of major concern to the industry and it calls for urgent action.
Sandra Osborne
I could not agree more; that is a major issue. Despite the wish to maintain a competitive prize regime for Scottish fixtures, to say nothing of our excellent facilities, the industry in Scotland cannot be sustained indefinitely in the face of massive cuts in income from the levy. The annual payment from betting to racing has fallen from an average of £106 million to £59 million in three years—a drop of almost 50%. One of the most important reasons for the fall in racing’s funding position, as Members have said, is the move offshore by bookmakers and betting exchanges. How can it be right for bookmakers to advertise and transact in the UK but not contribute to the levy or pay taxes? Of 19 listed bookmakers, only two are now onshore, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk said.
I am aware of the Minister’s July announcement in which he proposed to regulate remote gambling on a point-of-consumption basis. That would create a level playing field and it is long overdue. All operators based here or abroad would have to hold a Gambling Commission licence to transact with UK customers. I welcome that and any other idea that would deal with this urgent situation as the hon. Member for West Suffolk implored—as soon as possible.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who represents Newmarket, on making an eloquent and persuasive case. Right now, racing—along with its partners, the bookmakers—reminds me of the eurozone: a once mighty beast, unable to lead, unfit to govern, almost ungovernable and slowly being starved of cash, with solutions that too many vested interests will not address or embrace for fear of criticism by their members.
I have many things to declare. I am a category B licence holder and the only jockey in the House of Commons. As hon. Members will see, I am now in the heavyweight division. I blame the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for many things, but I am afraid that the election and the delights of the House of Commons have caused me to lose the racing weight that I enjoyed when I won races in 2009 at Corbridge in Hexham.
I must also declare a definite bookmaking background. At age 11, at school, I survived by running an illegal bookmaking operation, which well and truly persuaded me that the bookmaker will always be one step ahead of the punter. On Fridays, we used to receive five boiled sweets in a bag, which was the currency that we used to run our bookmaking operation. My headmaster tried to stop that illegal betting ring, which clearly paid no tax, but was prevented by the outcry among the punters—my fellow schoolchildren—and by the positive encouragement of my parents, who were pleased to see, although I was not necessarily concentrating on my studies, that at least I was not such a daydreamer that I could not make a bob or two. So I have worked as a bookmaker and understand the difficulties and delights of that noble profession.
I should also declare an interest as a former horse racing journalist. For three halcyon years, I was the racing correspondent for that august racing journal, the Limerick Weekly Echo. I managed to put one Limerick bookmaker out of business by predicting the first, second and third in the grand national of 1981, an accumulator that one would wish to get a hold of. I have worked in horse sales, bred racehorses and worked as a stable lad in various places up and down the country. Also, although I confess that I am not nearly as wealthy as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has many racehorses, I am in a syndicate with a part share in pointers and a chaser.
Over the years, I have ridden at a multitude of race courses, from Cheltenham to Kempton, and have enjoyed their delights, but I have a particular affiliation with and love for the finest race course in the world, which, as we all know, is Hexham. If hon. Members have not visited it, I urge them to do so. The team behind Hexham, one of the last few privately owned race courses in the country, have racing and the general public’s interest very much at heart. The race course provides employment, tourism and sport, supports breeding, vets and feed companies and is an integral part of society in the north-east. I know that I speak for all Members with race courses in their communities. Each of us will tell the same tale of how integral it is to their community, and how it provides much more than simply a race course where punters can place bets.
As the only jockey in Parliament and someone acutely interested in the issue, I can declare that the future funding of racing is important. It is a harsh reality that the number of horses going through the ranks of racing will increasingly diminish. That is patently obvious from the numbers. Horses will also be taken abroad to be trained. Why would anybody stay in this country to train a horse, unless they were particularly in love with the sport?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk spoke eloquently of the disparity in prize money for flat racing. The winner of a steeplechase race in France would get a minimum of £5,000, but the winner of a novice hurdle race at one of the lesser tracks here will probably end up with £1,000 or £1,200. By the time they have paid for travel, entry and all the other bits and bobs, it is almost not worth going to the races from a financial point of view. That 5:1 disparity in funding and prize money will eventually seep down into the system, causing the demise of racing in this country. Let us not be in any doubt. In what other sport is this country a world leader? One could make a case for cricket or a few other things, but in reality, racing is clearly the No. 1 sport at which this country is the champion, and we should support it. I certainly believe that it is a cause worth fighting for.
As others have said—I think that this opinion is cross-party—the present situation is patently untenable. We must address how racing is funded. The Government’s levy solution is clearly not sustainable in the long term. I applaud the Government’s efforts, which I know follow the efforts of previous Ministers, to find a radical new solution to how the levy is funded. I regret to say that I have little faith in bookmakers to volunteer a better system in future. That simply will not happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley seeks a discounted version of taxation in relation to offshore. That is a commercial advantage to which bookmakers would sign up gratefully, but it would be no solution whatever.
It is important to note that such companies’ profits are significant. Betfair made £26.6 million to April 2011. William Hill made £277 million to 29 December 2010, and its chief executive’s salary is £1.65 million, which I suspect would fund Hexham about eight times over. All the other organisations make substantial profits as well.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend should know that the fact that I have more horses in training than him is the reason why he is far richer than I am. He rattled off the figures, but will he acknowledge how much those businesses give to racing? Betfair, which has gone offshore, still gives £6.5 million of its £26 million every year in a voluntary levy to racing. If racing is so strapped for cash, is it not bizarre that the British Horseracing Authority is ignoring the advice of two eminent QCs that its customers should not pay a levy, and is spending money needlessly on a judicial review with William Hill? If the racing industry is strapped for cash, one would think that it would spend its money a bit more sensibly.
Guy Opperman
To misquote Christine Keeler, they would say that, wouldn’t they? The harsh reality is that Betfair is effectively trying to buy off the racing industry by making a donation that it does not have to make, in the hope that the matter will not be transferred back onshore. That is a strong assertion to make, but I suggest that there is ample evidence to support it.
It is also clear that bookmakers are seeing the writing on the wall. They are trying to diversify away from racing and into sports such as cricket and football. For example, on the subcontinent, in India, there is little betting on racing, because most of it is on cricket.
I urge the Minister to change the tax rules. If overseas operations wish to utilise British racing, they must pay more. I support entirely the idea that the punter based in this country is the source of the taxation.
I want to go one step further. If we do not have a solution and if we do not refinance racing, we will need to look at what to do then. If we do not resolve the issue and if the bookmakers and the Government do not address it properly, there will be only one solution. It is draconian, but it is the only alternative solution, and that is the nationalisation of bookmaking. That is the only way that we could approach the issue if bookmakers are no longer able or no longer willing, and the Government do not create a scheme, to fund it in this particular way. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley chunters from a sedentary position, although I accept that he never usually does that.
The point is that America may be the land of the free, but it has no competition in terms of state-sponsored bookmaking. Similarly, France, which is another competitive society, has a state-sponsored bookmaking system. That is also the way it is done in Australia and other places. Why is it that racing is funded so much better in those countries? Because everything that racing does goes back that way. I stress that I do not want to go down that route, but bookmakers and the Government need to understand that, if they do not sort this out, I regret to say that that will probably be the only remaining option.
I could say much more about how racing has been led and about the disaster of the whip debate and the way in which the British Horseracing Authority and Mr Roy have conducted themselves, but I have probably said enough.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), not only on securing this debate, but on his continued interest in the issue, for all the reasons that he has given.
Everyone present agrees that racing is a fantastic product. We only have to consider last Saturday’s Betfair Chase, where Kauto Star won a fantastic victory. All racing fans enjoyed that event. I do not have a racecourse in my constituency, but Go Racing in Yorkshire is a fantastic body that does well not only by promoting racing, but by bringing new people to racing through tourism and so on. Racing has an impact on employment and the country’s national identity, which is vital and something that we should not lose. A person’s social background and what they want out of a horse-racing event do not matter—they can go to the biggest and the best courses or to their local tracks, and enjoy the experience.
Today’s debate is timely. I thank the Minister for his work in trying to keep the momentum going—that is something that I tried, but, unfortunately, I was unsuccessful—on where we need to be and on achieving some realism. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is right—there are too many vested interests for the issue to be resolved. Much as it appeals to me as a Labour politician, his solution to nationalise the betting industry might not be the way forward, although I like where he is coming from and can think of other issues that he might like to talk about in terms of nationalisation. There are too many vested interests, which means that the debate centres on the argument between horse racing on one side and betting on the other, but the issue is too complex for it to be as simple as that.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk about what should happen with offshoring and think that the Minister’s solution is sensible. I wish him well on trying to resolve that with his colleagues in Government—I know how difficult that can be—and on the taxation issue.
I favour sports rights—I do not think that it is unknown that that is the route that I would follow. I think that sports betting rights are the way forward. The comparison with France is a good one—it has an 8% sports betting levy—and I think that sports rights will eventually be introduced, probably in three or four years’ time.
There has to be some more movement. I do not think that racing can sustain our 60 courses, or that the levy support helps that. Racing itself has tried, through Racing for Change and other initiatives, to deal with the issue by introducing a championship and examining what can be done on the grading of courses. That work needs to continue, because it is unlikely that we will be able to sustain the levels of prize money and investment. That does not mean that local courses cannot look for other means of support and investment—they should. The reality might hit some such courses. Towcester is a good example of what can be done by an individual course.
The issue of the levy needs to be resolved and the vested interests need to be sorted out. We also need to look at the betting industry. We have talked about the reliance of betting shops on the horse-racing product, but I believe that that now accounts for less than 30% of the takings, because people are betting on other sports such as football, rugby and cricket. The future of high street betting shops is an issue. The Minister will be aware of concerns surrounding the fixed-odds betting terminals—FOBTs—and what may or may not happen to them in the future. There has also been a move to online betting. I think that the structure and size of the betting industry will change, and that will affect racing. I feel for the independent bookmakers, because they get caught up in the problems. They have to do what the big boys do, and it costs them more, so their costs are ever increasing.
I believe that good faith has a part to play. Talking of which, I hope that the Minister will update us on the position of on-course pitch tenure. We entered into an agreement in good faith and progress has been made with some courses, but I hope that the matter is not forgotten and put to one side, because small independent bookmakers rely on those pitches and I think that we came to a compromise that should be accepted.
I think it was the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) who raised the issue of William Hill, Betfair and the Levy Board. The money being spent on that is an absolute waste, and the fact that the BHA has to cover the costs is an issue that needs to be resolved. It should not be going through the courts in the way that it is and the matter should be resolved. Betfair’s commitment to racing is well known. The levy may be voluntary, but it exists.
The Minister should continue with his work. It is good to see the co-chair of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), present. We as Members of Parliament can and will continue to help to put pressure on vested interests. The day will come when, if they do not sort this out themselves, it will be sorted out, but not in a way that people want. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk again on securing the debate. I am sure there will be other such debates and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who works so very hard to try to resolve what are extremely difficult issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on introducing this important and timely debate, and thank him for many of the things that he said.
I want to declare two non-declarable interests. I am joint-chairman of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, along with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), whom I am pleased to see present. With respect to other Members, I also have the honour of representing what I consider the greatest race course in the world—Cheltenham race course, where each year we have the world-famous Cheltenham gold cup. That is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, steeplechases in the world. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is a holder of one of those gold cups. I know that it is not the tradition of Government to have people who know what they are doing in post, but he is a very welcome exception to that rule.
I can only really endorse a lot of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and others have said. In this country, we have what is probably the greatest racing in the world. It is certainly up there with the best, if not the actual best. As the hon. Member for Bradford South said, we had the most fantastic spectacle at Haydock on Saturday, when Kauto Star won against all expectation, providing such excitement in the world of horse racing and in the world of sport. Last year, Tony McCoy—AP McCoy—won the BBC sports personality of the year because of his exploits, yet all that gets overshadowed by the constant wrangling about funding and the constant falling out over the levy—not just the level, but the details.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, who said that that is one of the best reasons for getting rid of the levy. It is divisive. It pits bookmaker against people in racing, whatever racing means in that respect. The levy was finally decided at quarter to 12 on the night of Halloween, which made for an unedifying spectacle. This is a very outdated and impractical system. As has been said, it has also delivered falling revenue. As the hon. Member for Mansfield said, that is important in many respects, not just for prize money, although it is significant with regard to prize money. Prize money is not everything, but it does filter down and find its way to trainers, jockeys and stable staff. It is extremely important not just so the rich can get richer, to coin a phrase, but so that those who work at the bottom can continue to work in the sport. Therefore, it is important to find a better funding mechanism, if mechanism is the right word. I will come on to that.
The principal point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was about how overseas operators are avoiding paying the levy. I do not object to anything he said, but I have quite a bit of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We have to analyse why people have gone abroad. It is not just because of the levy. To draw a brief analogy, I have the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and one recent proposal was for the Northern Ireland Assembly to have the right to set a corporation tax that would be attractive to companies and businesses, compared with corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland. The tax is 12.5% in the Republic and 26% in the UK—a bit of a no-brainer when thinking about where to put a factory or business. We should explore why companies have gone abroad in the first place and consider having the kind of tax regime that attracts them. That is not just about bookmakers; I could expand that argument to all sorts of other businesses, especially in the competitive world in which we live. I therefore hope that that point will be considered.
I have no objection to the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk made to the Minister, nor indeed to the considerations that the Minister is making, but we ought to think about why businesses went abroad in the first place. The constant pursuit of the exchanges is not healthy for the sport, or indeed for bookmakers, at this point. If we are talking about a levy replacement, let us get on with replacing it. Let us not get on with trying to tinker with the existing levy arrangement. If we do that, all we will end up with is levy mark 2—a similar arrangement to the one we have now, but called something else. I want us to move on from that.
How do we find the future funding for horse racing? That will not be particularly easy. If it were easy, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. We have heard a lot about a commercial solution. In terms of name and concept, I am all in favour of that commercial solution, but I am a little concerned that some of the proposals are not a commercial solution at all, but a rerunning of the levy. We need to avoid that.
There has been a call for any arrangement that is designed and agreed to be underpinned or guaranteed. We have to be very careful over how we go about that. Are we talking about underpinning through legislation? If we are, we have not really moved on much from where we are now. Indeed, we could find ourselves up in the European Court in relation to state aid rules. My view on state aid is that we are an independent country with a Parliament here, and we should do as we will. I would not bow to—[Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley would agree with me on that point. However, we are where we are at the moment, although we may change those rules in the future, and we do not want to fall foul of state aid rules. Any solution that we reach must be compliant. If the Minister will allow me to say so, we were rather too obsessed with state aid rules when it came to changing the status of the Tote—we gave them far too much credibility—but there is an issue here, no question about that.
Matthew Hancock
On the question whether a transfer should be underpinned by legislation, would it not be better in the long term to have it underpinned by contract—by agreement—based on, for instance, a racing right or sports betting right? That could be the basis of a commercial agreement. However, is it not important in the short term to solve the offshore problem, so that we have an appropriate basis from which to go forward to a truly sustainable position?
Mr Robertson
Just as many hon. Members anticipated my hon. Friend’s next statement, he has anticipated mine. The arrangement has to be consolidated and underpinned by the civil law, rather than by legislation. I entirely agree with him for a number of reasons, and the state aid issue is one. Another is that, if we are going commercial, we are going commercial—that is the way we should go. I understand his point. We have to bring offshore companies back onshore, but I would prefer to explore that through the way that I have described—perhaps by making it attractive for companies to do business in this country. We may need to go a little further than that, but it should certainly be explored.
On coming up with the commercial solution, I am not entirely convinced that the Government should decide the replacement for the levy. The Government have proposed three options, although I do not suppose that they are the only options that they would consider. However, there are other options that are perhaps not for the Government, but for racing and bookmakers, to put in place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about the increase in media rights. I understand that over the next year, from 2011-12 to 2012-13, they will increase by 26%. That could be considered different from the levy, but when an owner gets his cheque for £5,000 or £10,000, I do not think he is too concerned whether that has come from media rights, race courses, the levy or wherever; he is concerned about the size of that cheque. The whole cake is the important thing, not necessarily which particular segments have come from where.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I will not take up the Boundary Commission’s strange oversight in not including Cheltenham race course in the Cheltenham constituency this time. What does the hon. Gentleman think of the mechanism of having a requirement for all bookmakers, whether offshore or onshore, to hold a Gambling Commission licence in the UK? That Government proposal has merit, and I think the Jockey Club also supports it.
Mr Robertson
I am grateful to the Member for the Cheltenham constituency but not for the racecourse for his intervention. He makes a fair point that needs to be considered. The workings of the Gambling Commission are being looked at, which is a welcome step. That may be a way of tying people in, so that all bookmakers are caught up in the agreement that is eventually reached between racing and bookmakers. I hope that that could be explored.
On the commercial solution, I mentioned media rights. I also mentioned sponsorship, which is rarely discussed, although many bookmakers voluntarily put money into it—not only bookmakers, but many other companies. I am reliably informed by many in racing who are involved to trying to fund the sport that racing does not pursue sponsors and sponsorship as much, as often or as deeply as it could. That certainly needs exploring. It might not necessarily be part of a system or structure, but that money is available. Companies often sponsor more than just one sport: they might sponsor cricket and football and racing. That has to be further looked into.
Sir Alan Meale
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but we still need somehow to extract a price guarantee for the product. I find it difficult to accept that trainers, owners and jockeys will participate in a venture that produces a race for the industry to consume and make money from. Even at the minor level, £1.5 million is bet off-course on every single race, yet we have a scenario, which was referred to earlier, in which the owners and trainers of the race horses do not get enough money, even after winning the race, to provide the diesel and cover the transport costs of getting to the race course. That has to change and we must be given some access to a price guarantee for such people to make it worth doing at all.
Mr Robertson
I agree with the co-chairman of the all-party group on that matter. My only point is that the system should be guaranteed commercially and not necessarily underpinned by legislation or by the Government. I agree entirely with his point—I simply do not know how people continue to fund owning racehorses. If they cover their training fee for one month, they have done extremely well. That cannot be done every time—an owner will not win a race each month to cover the training fees, and indeed, they would still be no better off. In this country, the official figure for costs recovered is about 23%, which cannot be sustainable.
My final point on a commercial solution is that race courses, as well as bookmakers, are a big player. I agree with a lot of what has been said by other hon. Members in that there are too many other, bit-part players involved. It might be more polite to say that too many middlemen are involved, which clouds the issue and causes too many problems. Race courses and bookmakers are probably the main players in finding a solution, and we must find that solution. Horse racing is an outstanding sport that gives much pleasure, enjoyment, exercise and discipline to many people each and every day. We must find a way forward to maintain the very high level that horse racing has achieved over many years.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on his continued pressure on the subject and on securing the debate today. He and other hon. Members who have spoken have anticipated every page of my speech, so my few remarks will be from the angle of representing Redcar race course in my constituency. I am delighted that Go Racing in Yorkshire still says that the course is in Yorkshire, despite the local government gyrations that keep giving my area different administrations.
For a course such as Redcar, the effect of the problem over the past few years has been quite dramatic and, to some extent, hidden. The subtle effect of lowering prize money is that fewer owners attend the races, while some races are getting a lower rating, which influences the view of top trainers. They have always been happy to send horses to Redcar—trainers such as Henry Cecil are regular visitors—in particular as it is one of the few courses in the country with a flat straight mile. The 2011 cards have seen a noticeable drop in the number of trainers coming from places such as Newmarket or even further south—a trainer from Arundel used to send horses regularly—partly because of the cost of transport but also the subtle effect of lower prize money, which means lower quality racing. That vicious circle affects many smaller courses.
Redcar race course sits right in the middle of the town, so any change would have far-reaching effects, way beyond racegoers. It is a key part of our cultural life; for example, a great charity event for Help for Heroes was held there this summer, and I was happy to be one of those presenting a prize. The effect of race courses on towns is far wider than just racing.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Is racing not one of those unique sporting occasions that brings people from isolated rural areas in contact with those in urban areas? All walks of life coalesce around that fantastic sport, which is unique in that respect.
Ian Swales
Absolutely. I cannot beat my hon. Friend’s lyrical description, but in Redcar, the race course is particularly important because it brings people into the resort activities of Redcar as well as for racing, often on the same day. Race courses play a key cultural role.
We must also remember—a point that has not been made—that bookmakers are key tenants on our hard-pressed high streets. I recently visited a bookmaker’s in Redcar, along with a representative of the Association of British Bookmakers. Although the ABB likes to remind us that UK racing is a smaller slice of the cake these days, the manager of the shop confirmed that it is still the major source of footfall in the shop. People using casino machines, for example, will most likely have come through the door because of racing. That is also true for many of those putting a bet on football on a Saturday; they are in the shop because of racing, even though the bet will appear in the bookmaker’s turnover as a bet on football. We should not accept too many scare stories from bookmakers.
Matthew Hancock
Does that not reiterate the need for a level playing field? Betting shops inevitably pay the levy because a shop cannot be moved offshore.
Ian Swales
That is absolutely true. My hon. Friend made the point earlier that independent bookmakers do not have the option to move offshore and, typically, they operate from fixed premises.
I support everything that has been said so far, and I welcome the Minister’s statement of 14 July. The suggestion that operators, wherever based, wishing to transact with UK customers would have to pay for a licence makes sense. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on his hard work on behalf of the racing industry, and I agree that we have to think a bit bigger. It is high time that the levy system was scrapped; the tinkering that he mentioned will not provide a long-term solution. Commercial negotiations over the sale of the product, and a more entrepreneurial attitude from the industry, could have dramatic effects. We have seen what happens in other sports such as football, cricket and even darts when proper negotiations take place.
There is also sponsorship. Newcastle United has just decided, controversially, to rename its ground from St James’s Park, but that will net something like £10 million a year. What opportunities do race courses have in that regard?
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I represent the most beautiful race course in the world, in Beverley. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need Government action to provide a new settlement that will get us over the endless grief caused to the former Minister and, I am sure, to Ministers in this Government? We can get the framework right, giving certainty for the future. We would send out a cross-party message that there will be no further legislative interventions, and then ask the commercial partners—bookmakers and race courses—to sit down together and sort out the differences, rather than looking constantly to us to provide a solution for them.
Ian Swales
I agree. I am not suggesting that the levy should be scrapped overnight, but we should have an eye to the future, beyond a system that will get us to the future.
I ask Members to think about the amounts of money that pour into sports such as football and Formula 1 from TV, and then think about how few hours those sports are shown on television compared with racing. Does racing even know what its product is worth? If people off the courses are generating £1.5 million every half an hour, what are the TV rights really worth?
I welcome the direction that the Minister is taking. I welcome the Tote deal, because it kept a large benefit for racing, although I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), which is that the most successful racing countries in the world typically do not have commercial bookmakers but a Tote-style system. I hope we never get there, but it is possibly a safety net.
It is vital to our communities that we reform the finances, because race courses play a crucial cultural, economic and environmental role. The Government must continue to set the framework for the industry.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Williams. I am sorry that I was a little late. I shall keep my comments short.
I add my support for my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and congratulate him on raising the issue of an important industry and a vital part of our heritage. When the Government and all of us are stretching every sinew to promote growth in the country, it seems criminally negligent to allow the decline of a great industry that we already have. On a personal note, as the proud son of a former grand national-winning jockey who had the privilege of riding for Her Majesty the Queen Mother, it is a chance to remind ourselves of the great heritage of this great sport. My point is about the importance of national hunt racing in the rural economy. Low prize money is a particularly acute problem, and the whole pyramid of small trainers, point-to-points, hunts, pony clubs, hauliers and feed suppliers in a constituency such as mine is essential to underpin our rural economy and rural communities.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing the debate, and his tenacity in following the issue. I have read previous debates that he has taken part in. I do not know whether he is aware that we share an interest in the Middle Park stud. Back in the mid-19th century, William Blenkiron, who had made an enormous amount of money in a men’s outfitters in the City, bought a horse called Glance, and set up stables in London after he retired. That activity grew so much that Blenkiron moved to Middle Park—it was then in Kent, but is now in an inner London borough—where he set up the Middle Park stud, which became the biggest stud in the country, and a tourist attraction. People from all over Europe would go to see that magnificent place. It is now a council housing estate, and in the middle is a place called Newmarket Green. The stud moved to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so we share some history. I believe that the Middle Park stakes are still run at Newmarket.
I bow to the superior knowledge that has been displayed by all hon. Members who have spoken. I cannot claim to be steeped in the history of racing, or to be as involved as Members who have spoken with great knowledge of the subject. My experience comes from childhood memories of my dad reading Sporting Life and studying form at the kitchen table on Saturday mornings. He was a member of a number of syndicates, and was a lifelong advocate and supporter of most betting shops, not to put too fine a point on it. He frequently told me that a horse was a dead cert and that he had been following it for years. Most were last heard of at the starting line, and never seen again. He loved racing, and had a lifelong association with it. It was a real joy for him, and it is part of our heritage. It is an industry and a sport that we should all protect, because it is important and we would rue the day if it were damaged or lost.
The history of gambling and betting shops is synonymous with horse racing. Gambling started at the trackside, and moved into the high street. That is when the levy arose. Betting shops were no longer on-course, and because of the investment necessary for racing, breeding horses and the industry generally, it was recognised that they should contribute to sustaining the sport through the levy. There is agreement that the arrangement should continue into the future if we are to sustain the industry. I add my voice to those who have today urged the Government to legislate to enable the horse racing industry to negotiate a return for its intellectual property rights and the investment that it puts into horse racing to ensure that it is sustained in future.
Does the racing industry believe that it is sustainable, not just in horse racing but in sport generally, for it to make enormous sums of money from what is invested in the sport and the effort that goes into organising the sport? Additional costs are imposed on the sport to sustain its integrity because of the dangers that it is exposed to through illegal gambling activities. Is it sustainable for the betting industry to continue to make money from the sport without contributing to it, particularly to its grass roots in our communities that sustain it? As has been said, horse racing involves a great deal at community level, and it is such an important part of local communities that without investment trickling down to its grass roots, the whole edifice will be undermined. None of us wants that, and I am sure that no one in the betting industry wants it either.
The question today is whether the current situation, when so many people are moving away and contributing less, is sustainable in the long term, not just in horse racing, but in sport generally. Some of the scandals in sport generally have involved illegal gambling practices with inducements for people to become involved in activities that do not affect the outcome—a no-ball in cricket, the first yellow card or a throw-in in football. If larger sums of money can be made from such activities than from performing in the sport, its integrity will be undermined. It is not just a matter of saying that such practices have occurred in the unregulated areas of gambling, because that is not so. There have been examples even in the UK’s regulated gambling operations of quite severe and large-scale corrupt activities to try to fix the outcome of gambling. If we are to sustain the integrity of the gambling industry so that it is not undermined, and to continue to have faith in sport and its outcome, knowing that it is genuine competition, we must work together to sustain the integrity of both sport and gambling. That means that a fair return must be paid to sport, and we must ensure that we work together to achieve that outcome.
I have some questions for the Minister. I assume that he accepts the principle that those who make money from gambling should contribute to the sport, particularly horse racing, which is the subject of this debate. What conclusions has he come to? He said that he intends to legislate to create a level playing field between those who operate onshore and those who operate offshore. Can he tell us today when and how he intends to move forward on that? Does he agree with the British racing industry that payment should be based around betting, not just on viewing rights, and that there should be some relationship to the amount of money that is exchanged in gambling on horse racing so that there is a sustainable replacement for the levy? Does he intend to legislate in that vein?
The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about the future of the Tote. Will the Minister say what arrangements will be made for the Tote to make a continuing contribution to racing? It was set up to contribute to the future of horse racing. My time is up, so I ask the Minister to respond to those few questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair looking after us today, Mr Williams. I want to thank and congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who secured the debate, has been notable in his continuing support for the industry and also for his tenacity in following it.
I am greatly heartened by the relatively widespread cross-party position on many aspects surrounding the debate. That is important to note not just now but for the future, because the problem has been knocking around for 51 years—the levy is 51 years old this year—and has defeated many people across the House and in the gambling and horse racing industries. It is not a simple problem; it is a difficult issue. Many Members have remarked on the fact that there are entrenched interests and points of view, and honestly held and fervently delivered opinions on all sides. If the problem were simple, we would have solved it 30 years ago. However, nobody has managed it, so it is helpful and worth marking that there seems to be emerging consensus, although there are still many important points of detail to deal with.
I am not sure whether this is a declarable interest, but in the interests of transparency I mention that my wife is a non-executive director of the race course at Cheltenham, from where my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) comes. She also has a horse in training, although the prospect of its being involved in any meaningful prize money is more theoretical than actual at the moment. At least the declaration has been made.
Several colleagues have asked about the proceeds of the Tote, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). The Government made a promise during the process of selling the Tote that 50% of the net returns would go to racing, and we intend to honour that promise. We are currently in discussions with the racing industry, and my approach has been very simple. I am happy to provide those proceeds via whatever mechanism racing chooses, with the sole proviso that it will not fall foul of competition or state aid rules. Basically, we sat down with racing and said, “With those sole provisos, tell us how you want it done”, and we are getting close to a solution. I am pleased to report steady progress, but there are important details that need to be sorted out.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) asked about progress on on-course bookmakers’ pitches. That is a knotty problem that has been ongoing since he was in the ministerial chair. I am happy to report that Arena and Northern race courses are making good progress. They are all but there in terms of signing agreements. Certainly, there have been handshakes on deals, and I welcome that progress. Jockey Club race courses are still in negotiation. Once the big three groups of race courses have agreed a structure, I suspect that the remaining independents, of which there are many, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, will follow. I urge Jockey Club race courses and on-course bookmakers to pursue that remaining piece of negotiation rapidly. Others have managed it already. If we can get them over the line, or if they can get themselves over the line, they will not have to worry about politicians interfering. If politicians come up with a deal, I suspect it will be less good than one the industries come up with themselves.
I was delighted about and thankful for the level of support voiced for the Government’s proposals to change the way that offshore bookmaking is dealt with. It is important to realise that for entirely understandable commercial reasons—entirely logical commercial decisions in many cases—because of a system that was set up with a set of commercial incentives, many bookmakers moved offshore over the course of the past five or 10 years. We aim to change the way those offshore bookmakers are regulated. Several colleagues have been kind enough to describe this as simple and elegant; we are switching the way offshore bookmakers are regulated so that anybody anywhere in the world who is selling gambling services to people based in Britain will have to hold a British Gambling Commission licence. That neatly enfranchises all those firms within the British regulatory net, which is important for consumer protection. In this country, we are used to a well regulated and responsible gambling industry that is by and large clean and tries to make sure that it delivers on its social responsibilities for the small and unfortunate minority of people who suffer from gambling addiction. That is not the case in many other countries.
We need to ensure that we remain well regulated and that we continue to have a responsible industry. A British punter who goes online and uses this or that gambling website does not necessarily know whether the website is regulated in the UK or abroad. In some foreign jurisdictions, there are good regulators, but not in others, I am afraid. It is essential that a British punter knows that no matter where the website may be hosted, it is still protected by British regulation, and therefore they have the legal protections that they would expect if they walked into a betting shop on a British high street. That is the starting point for our regulatory changes.
The changes may also have important knock-on implications for taxation. I will try not to tread on the Treasury’s toes, but some parallel announcements were made a few days after we announced our regulatory changes. They are also working their way through the system. The point I want to make to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and anybody else who has raised the point during the debate is that changing the way we treat offshore regulation is an essential first step to dealing with consumer protection and potentially to dealing with things such as the levy and possibly even taxation. However, that is not the whole answer. Clearly, we need to move on, having built that foundation, to create a new environment and a new type of successor to the levy.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We do not want the gambling industry to go the same way as the British shipping industry. The way to solve the problem is to reduce taxation so that the industry does not want go offshore in the first place.
John Penrose
As a low-tax and free-market Tory, my instincts are of course with my hon. Friend. We will have to wait for the Treasury’s announcement on such matters. It is important to remember that there is a distinction between betting duty and corporation tax. Just as Goldman Sachs has a headquarters based in America but a large operation here in the UK, so too the location of betting firms’ corporate headquarters may be in a different place from where their operations and the jobs are. That is an important distinction to remember.
Given the limited amount of time, I want briefly to update colleagues on the progress we are making in the ongoing discussions between the gambling and horse racing industries in our search to find a successor to the levy. I am afraid I will not be able to give a running commentary, because the conversations are detailed and difficult, with the entrenched positions that everyone here has already mentioned. However, I can report that I have been impressed so far by the willingness of all sides to engage constructively and actively, and with a degree of determination. We are only partway through the process. There is a great deal further to do.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury that while we may have started with the three options that I laid out to get the conversation started, we are moving on from them. I am taking the approach that if the gambling and horse racing industries can come up with something that they are both willing to sign up to, which satisfies basic principles of fairness on each side, it is not up to politicians to second-guess or contradict what the two industries can agree. We want to come up with something that is both enforceable and sustainable, so that when a new contract comes to an end there is a series of incentives and potential downsides for both industries that force them back to the table. That would ensure that they need to negotiate a successor contract or agreement so that the arrangement does not just come to an end after five years. If we can arrange those kinds of incentives, we will have that long sought after arrangement where racing will become in the best possible sense of the word a normal sport that does not depend on politicians and does not require Ministers or anybody from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and where the phrase “Hello, I’m here from the Government, and I’m here to help” does not send a chill through the blood.
Human Rights (Colombia)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and may I express my appreciation to Mr Speaker for having selected this important debate?
The conflict in Colombia is one of the oldest on the planet and it spans some 50 years. Technically, the fighting is between Colombian Government official armed forces and various guerrilla groups such as the ELN—the national liberation army—and FARC. The situation, however, is more complicated because of the large number of right-wing paramilitaries, who operate with almost complete impunity, systematically murdering the ordinary people of Colombia in droves, and an army that clearly colludes and co-operates with them. I requested this debate because we need to send the Colombian Government a clear message.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I have with me a statement on Colombia issued jointly by the Governments of Colombia and of the United Kingdom, and I understand that an important visit took place yesterday. The statement contains, however, no reference whatever to the trade unions, or—as far as I can see on a quick reading—to any of the Churches. Does my hon. Friend find that somewhat interesting?
Jim Sheridan
My right hon. Friend raises an important point; he has a proud track record of looking at situations in terms of human rights. I hope that the Minister will take his comments on board and perhaps clarify that point.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate at this early stage. I have just hosted a meeting in the Foreign Office that was held by the President of Colombia and at which a range of non-governmental organisations, including representatives from trade unions and Christian organisations, had the opportunity to make those points directly to him as part of a wider conversation.
Jim Sheridan
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I do not want to sound negative, but the all-party British-Latin America group arranged a meeting with President Santos for yesterday and, unfortunately, not much notice was given to the rest of us, so we heard about a meeting scheduled for Monday afternoon only on Monday morning. Speaking personally, it was almost impossible to get to that meeting, but had we known about it earlier, even more trade unionists and similar people would have attended.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
We hear the Minister’s comments, but if we as a country attack those in the middle east who kill their own people—in particular, I highlight Syria and other countries where there have been problems—should we not do the same with Colombia? Many MPs have tried over many years to raise the issue of Colombia and highlight the fact that many innocent people, mainly trade unionists, are being killed. Should our Government not send a clear message to the Colombian Government that we will not tolerate that, and that we want to highlight things that are taking place on a daily basis?
Jim Sheridan
That is the objective of this debate: we are sending a clear message to the Colombian Government that what they are doing is simply unacceptable. We have sent clear messages to Syria and other countries on exactly the same issue.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is more fortunate than me, as my invitation to yesterday’s meeting is yet to arrive. I believe, however, that we, as parliamentarians, should send an important message to President Santos: in addition to the points raised this morning, we want to congratulate him on the courageous stand he is making to challenge the system that results in the prohibition of drugs throughout the world. We wholeheartedly support him on that.
Jim Sheridan
I am more than happy to concur with my hon. Friend, but, although I do not wish to be cynical, we have heard those words before. We are now at the stage where rhetoric is no longer acceptable and we are looking for deeds.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We know about the history of Colombia and the human rights abuses, and that it is probably the capital of drug barons. Furthermore, UN figures and the research papers cite 26,500 cases of presumed forced disappearance, and there are major concerns that Colombia is a network for people trafficking. Organisations such as the A21 campaign, and other groups in England, are greatly concerned. Does he agree that it is possible that people are being trafficked around the world?
Jim Sheridan
The hon. Gentleman is right—human trafficking in Colombia is an extremely important issue that I hope we will address seriously.
The international community will not remain silent while human rights abuses continue, and we must make clear our support for a proper peace process in Colombia. The conflict will end only with a peace process between the Government and the guerrilla groups, and the UK Government should do everything in their power to encourage all parties in the conflict to enter into serious negotiations. We must support civil society’s efforts for peace.
The authorities, and particularly the armed forces, readily label any ordinary Colombian, especially rural peasants or any Colombian they like—or, more accurately, do not like—a terrorist. They then kill or butcher them, or at best arrest them and lock them in jail without proper charges or trial. Until recently, the army offered holiday bonuses or promotions to personnel who captured or killed a FARC guerrilla, so it is hardly surprising that innocent people were being rounded up, shot and dressed as terrorists.
Two years ago, I visited Colombia together with some colleagues, and I met mothers who told me how their sons had been murdered. The authorities said that the boys were FARC guerrillas, and the army had even set up false employment recruitment agencies to offer those poor boys jobs in the countryside before simply executing them. Boys as young as 16 met that fate. Other mothers told us of sons who were killed and then dressed in guerrilla uniforms. When the mothers went to see the bodies, their sons were wearing FARC uniforms that the mothers had never seen before, despite their sons having lived at home. Remarkably, although the bodies had bullet holes, the uniforms they were wearing did not. The killing of a FARC terrorist earned the soldiers extra holiday. Killing an innocent boy and stuffing the body in a FARC uniform was—and still is—common practice.
The Colombian human rights movement calls such actions false positives. Thousands of people have been killed in that way, many while President Santos was Defence Minister. When I visited Colombia in 2009, the United Nations stated that the number of killings carried out by the Colombian army could constitute a crime against humanity. It also said that the figure for such killings that have not resulted in any conviction stands at 98%, and according to the Colombian Commission of Jurists, impunity for crimes committed by the army or paramilitaries stands at 99%—a shocking situation.
The current Government under Juan Manuel Santos—who I am happy to say is visiting London today; he is very welcome—have pledged that many things will change, and the international community is watching closely. Nevertheless, the number of ordinary Colombian civilians being killed is as high as before. Since President Santos came to power, 110 social activists have been killed, and 29 human rights defenders were killed in the first half of this year. No one has been brought to trial for any of those murders.
Sadly, just two weeks ago, the highly respected NGO, the Centre for Investigation and Popular Education, reported that under President Santos the army has continued to carry out extrajudicial executions—nine so far—and to report murdered civilians as guerrillas killed in combat. Amnesty International states:
“The security forces’ counter-insurgency strategy is largely based on the premise that those living in conflict areas are part of the enemy”.
Let me give some examples. Just last month, on 13 October, a student, Yan Lugo, was killed by a bomb thrown into a student demonstration in Cali. He was nearly blown in half. Ten other students were severely wounded. The police accused him of being blown up by a bomb that he was carrying. All the students deny that, but—surprise, surprise—no investigation has taken place, as far as we know.
An even more brutal story appeared earlier this year when three women from one family were massacred—butchered to death—by paramilitaries, in addition to two farm workers being shot. Those people were killed with machetes. The youngest, five-year-old Sorith Roa, had her hands chopped off. That happened on the same day that 1,000 local peasants organised an event to give testimony of army abuses in the region. It happened in an area controlled by the army, which, it seems, did nothing whatever about it and let it happen. Why were those women murdered? Was five-year-old Sorith a FARC guerrilla?
Those are just two examples of what continues to go on in Colombia today, and still no one is brought to justice.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I, too, took part in the visit to Colombia in 2009. Like me, my hon. Friend will be aware that people are murdered—shot to death, their bodies riddled with bullets. Then a camouflage uniform is put on them, but there are no bullet holes in the uniform, so there is no investigation. Does he agree that that is outrageous?
Jim Sheridan
That is a classic example of how the Colombian authorities carry out their business. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was with me, and we spoke to the mothers of the poor young men who were assassinated—massacred—in exactly the way he describes.
To return to the question of people being brought to justice, 98% of the crimes that we are discussing were carried out under the army’s nose. I fully appreciate that President Santos has promised widespread reform and “democratic prosperity”. One of his announcements was that he would disband the Colombian security police force, known as the DAS, which was notorious for its widespread links with paramilitaries. He has also set up an investigation into the links between DAS police and the paramilitaries. However, the 6,000 DAS staff are simply to be divided up among a new intelligence agency, the Office of the Attorney General, which is charged with investigating crimes, and the Office of the Prosecutor General. Therefore, that so-called reform, rather than purging one institution of its links to paramilitarism and crime, will place its members within the institutions charged with investigating those links. You could not make it up, Mr Williams.
Furthermore, the national security doctrine that governed the DAS will remain unchanged, which means that the new intelligence agency is likely to continue to view the political opposition and social movements as allies of subversion.
Under President Uribe, Colombia pushed through a justice and peace law that allegedly saw paramilitary forces demobilise. From that moment on, the Government have said that paramilitaries no longer exist. The growth of abuses by successor groups has forced the Government to recognise the violence, and they now call them “criminal bands”. However, that does not recognise the political and economic control that paramilitaries continue to exert in vast regions of the country, and it reduces the murders that they commit to random acts of violence, rather than classing them as politically motivated crimes.
Furthermore, the complicity and co-operation of Government forces with the groups continues. In the Casa Zinc massacre in Montecristo at 7 pm on 17 August, paramilitaries tortured and killed three peasants. Army troops were stationed nearby, but did not intervene. On 12 October, the San José peace community denounced army and paramilitary co-operation in the region, cataloguing a series of abuses, including threats, illegal searches and recruitment of minors. On 16 August, Rafael Andres Gonzalez Garnica, a peasant trade unionist, was assassinated in Cartagena del Chaira, Caqueta, an operational centre for the army, only a block from a police checkpoint.
An independent report by the New Rainbow Corporation states that, in some areas in Colombia, paramilitary forces follow once the army establishes control and that in others
“some members of the military forces seem to be one”
with paramilitary groups. That helps to explain why many human rights abuses occur in areas that the army controls.
I fully appreciate that President Santos has introduced, as the flagship of his approach, the land and victims law, the stated intention of which is to return land to the peasants from whom it has been stolen since 1991 and to compensate people who have been the victims of human rights abuses since 1986. However, the reality is that even if the web of quasi-legal documents that now tie that land to big business or even multinationals is untangled and even if, as is unlikely, peasants can win a claim to some land, they are likely to suffer the same fate as Ana Fabricia Cordoba—a community leader killed on 7 June this year. She had repeatedly told authorities that she was receiving death threats, but nothing was done to provide her with protection. She had led the community’s demand for their stolen land to be returned. She fled her home region in 2001, after her husband was murdered. She was killed 11 months after her son was also murdered—a crime allegedly carried out by the police.
Jim McGovern
Last week, Aidee Moreno—a Colombian trade unionist—visited Parliament. Her entire family has been targeted because of her trade union activities. Her brother, husband and mother have been brutally murdered by paramilitaries. Her niece has disappeared, never to be seen again. Under the provisions of the land and victims law, Aidee Moreno would be due some financial compensation. However, she does not seek compensation, because she says that it
“doesn’t compensate for all those years of suffering and injustice.”
Will my hon. Friend join me in sending best wishes and regards to Aidee Moreno?
Jim Sheridan
I, too, had the privilege and pleasure of meeting that brave young woman, who has put her life on the line for people in her community. I have to say, unfortunately, that time will tell whether her bravery is rewarded or whether she is found dead—killed—as well. We complain about the problems in relation to workers’ rights and trade unions in this country; it is a humbling experience then to see what happens to people in Colombia who stand up for their basic human rights.
The reality is that paramilitaries still control large regions of Colombia and that, while the army continues to collude with them, nothing will change. Until the Government acknowledge that paramilitarism still exists as a major force, despite Uribe’s justice and peace law and the supposed demobilisation, and unless they recognise the political motivation behind the abuses committed by those groups, nothing will change.
The land and victims law would be workable in a truly post-conflict situation, but this is not a post-conflict situation and illegal armed groups are everywhere. Additionally, peasant farmers continue to be displaced and those new victims will not be recognised. It is also disturbing that the victims, if they are to be recompensed in any way under the land and victims law, are forced to waive the right to seek justice for the crime that has been committed against them. They literally have to sign a document saying that they will not seek an investigation into the murder of their mother, father or husband. How can that possibly provide people with any dignity or peace of mind?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the fact that the supposed aim of victims law 1448 is to offer victims restitution, but will not victims be unable meaningfully to pursue restitution when they are still at risk in circumstances of ongoing conflict? Does the law not fail to protect victims in many respects? Does it not offer protection to the victim makers? Is there not also the question of how indigenous people are meant to gain access to their lands when so many mining rights have been granted over huge areas?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is almost impossible for indigenous people in Colombia to reclaim their land, not simply because of the fear of death, but because of the behaviour of some large multinational companies, many of which are based in this country. Their behaviour in clearing peasants’ land is unforgiveable, and that must also be challenged.
In addition to buying people off and failing to provide any security to those trying to return to their land, the state has not put in place sufficient organisation to deal with the millions of claims, and it still will not recognise any state responsibility for abuses.
Mr Jeremy Browne
The hon. Gentleman said that British companies, or at least companies based in Britain, were driving indigenous people off their land in Colombia. I should be grateful if he named them, because I would wish to take up his concerns directly with those companies. If he could name them now, that would be very helpful.
Jim Sheridan
I am absolutely delighted that the Minister will take up that case on our behalf, and I will send him the list of companies that we are investigating. I am happy to provide him with that evidence. He can then clearly tell us what actions he, as a Minister, will take.
The land and victims law has arbitrarily established different cut-off points for recompense. The cut-off point is 1991 for victims of displacement and 1986 for victims of human rights abuses, thus denying recompense to those who were made victims before those dates. The land and victims law also arbitrarily sets 2005 as the end date for claims of victimhood. Victims must prove the political nature of crimes committed against them after that date, because the paramilitaries are considered to have demobilised after 2005, despite masses of evidence to the contrary.
The land and victims law effectively legalises displacement in cases where it is established that returning land would affect a region’s economic interests. It fails to recognise the phenomenon of urban displacement. Furthermore, the health and education benefits assigned to victims are not a form of recompense; rather, it is the duty of the state to provide such things to all Colombian citizens.
Worse still is the fact that, under the country’s new national development plan, priority will be given to industries such as mining and oil extraction. That rules out returning any lands that fall into those categories where it is claimed that doing so would affect a region’s economic interests. Ever more people are being displaced as a means of gaining access to land that is rich in resources. In the Meta department, 2,500 families are due to be pushed off their land by the armed forces. The military has accused them of being FARC families, putting their lives in grave danger. Is it purely coincidental that coltan—a highly valuable mineral—has been discovered in the area, which is also highly likely to contain oil?
The land and victims law effectively divides the victims movement, recognising some victims and rejecting others, depending on when the abuse occurred. It also divides victims into those who think a little compensation is better than justice, therefore playing on the desperation of the usually poor victims. For those who try to go home, the continuing existence of paramilitary groups makes doing so a deadly proposition.
Although the President should be given credit for finally recognising the existence of victims, the land and victims law has done more for the Government’s political reputation than for victims themselves. Alongside this law, reforms are being made to the judiciary. That includes returning cases involving crimes committed by soldiers to military courts, opening the way for continued impunity, with no one being brought to justice for the thousands of civilian executions that soldiers carried out in cold blood.
To return to the ongoing extra-judicial executions and the general human rights carnage, it is terribly sad that the Colombian Government refuse to acknowledge that politically motivated paramilitaries continue to exist, that their own forces are responsible for extensive killings and that, despite efforts to the contrary, no progress has been made on impunity.
Trade union activists in Colombia risk their lives in their attempt to bargain collectively for better pay and conditions. Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. In 2001, a British trade union delegation travelled to Colombia to meet colleagues there. Its members were so horrified by what they encountered—the lack of basic human rights and a general free hand to kill trade unionists—that they came back to Britain and, with other unions here, established the excellent NGO, Justice for Colombia, which belongs to every major UK trade union, such is the strength of feeling among unions here about the basic right to pursue collectivism to improve working conditions.
Some 2,908 trade unionists have been killed in Colombia since 1986, and 23 have been killed this year alone. Before anyone else mentions this, I should point out that the Vice-President is a former trade union leader. The embassy seems to think that that will convince us that things have changed, but in reality, it has changed nothing for trade union activists.
At 10 pm on 16 August, trade union activist Rafael Andres Gonzalez Garnica was murdered while having dinner with friends in a restaurant. He was shot dead just yards from a police checkpoint in the department of Caqueta, which locals suspect was being manned by police and paramilitaries. On 22 August, trade union activist Alfonso Diaz Villa was assassinated near his home. He was a regional leader of the university workers union, SINTRAUNICOL, and he had been receiving death threats since 2005. Despite the danger in which the union’s leaders find themselves, the Colombian Government have suspended the protection scheme for them, belying the regime’s claims that trade unionists are given adequate protection. As usual, the murderers are not brought to justice. According to Human Rights Watch, people have been brought to justice in only 10% of cases, although almost 3,000 people have been killed.
The British unions and their NGO, Justice for Colombia, formed a parliamentary group of MPs and lords. Together, we will continue to fight for the safety, well-being and rights of our friends in the Colombian trade union movement and of others fighting for justice in Colombia. Our main priority is to help to encourage the parties to the Colombian conflict to engage in a proper peace process that achieves real social justice, because the conflict will not end without it. A colleague will come on to this issue in more detail later, but I want to highlight early-day motion 2276, which we have tabled to that end. I call on the UK Government to use their influence to support that aim.
Justice for Colombia and the MPs and peers in its parliamentary group are often the subject of underhand slurs and insinuations, but we understand that that is par for the course, and we will not be deterred. Meanwhile, I hope President Santos’s words will soon be translated into actions. For too long, our intelligence has been insulted by the Colombian Government, who think that we will be convinced by flowery speeches and well-meaning words. The Colombian people have suffered enough—it is time to see action.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome the debate. It is timely that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) has obtained it to coincide with the visit to this country of President Santos. The account that the hon. Gentleman gave of the violence and abuse being meted out to individuals and whole communities in Colombia was very moving and disturbing. While I expect the Government will want to emphasise trade and positive co-operation on such things as climate finance during the visit—those things are extremely positive—it is right that human rights should play a prominent part in the debates surrounding the visit, and in the Government’s specific discussions with President Santos.
The record is still very poor. The ABColombia group of British NGOs working in Colombia reported in recent documentation that the total number of people assumed —even by the Colombian Attorney-General’s office—to have disappeared for political reasons in Colombia is 27,000. That is an astonishing number. The Catholic Fund for Overseas Development reports that attacks on human rights defenders and community leaders have, if anything, escalated in recent years, despite the positive statements that President Santos made when he came into office. In fact, it says that 54 human rights defenders or community leaders have been killed in the first year of the President’s term of office. A local NGO reported 174 different acts of aggression or violence against human rights defenders.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North is right to highlight the position of trade unionists in Colombia, which seems uniquely vulnerable. An International Confederation of Free Trade Unions survey this year reported that 49 trade unionists had been killed in Colombia—more than ICFTU reported killed in the whole of the rest of the world. Even the country’s Government admit that 37 people have been killed simply for their trade union activities. Amnesty International tried to get to the source of the killings of trade unionists, and its analysis suggested that roughly half were paramilitary groups completely outside the control of state agencies and that a very small fraction were guerrilla movements such as FARC; but Amnesty reckoned that more than 40% were connected to state forces. That is an extremely troubling statistic in any country that aspires to democracy and the rule of law, as Colombia clearly does. It has ratified international human rights conventions, and International Labour Organisation conventions on the rights of trade unionists; yet until last year, it had been on the ILO trade unionist rights blacklist for 21 years in succession. That is a pretty appalling record.
The Foreign Office has recognised the seriousness of the human rights situation in Colombia, and I have many times praised and welcomed last year’s human rights report by the Department and the Secretary of State, which highlighted issues about Colombia. It also highlighted another issue dear to my heart, since as well as being an occasional Liberal Democrat spokesman, I chair the all-party group on tribal peoples. The Government’s report sets out very well the vulnerability of indigenous peoples. It is not only illegal armed groups but commercial interests—in mining, rubber and palm oil—that are effectively involved in land grabs and some of the worst violence against any communities in Colombia. Twelve people were killed in the worst massacre, in 2009, of the Awa people, including a three-year-old child and an eight-month-old baby. That is the level of violence and abuse. As always, tribal people’s rights are connected to land rights.
The present Government must be given some credit. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North talked about the victims law; ABColombia highlighted that and, indeed, many of its weaknesses and the interaction with the economic situation. They nevertheless described it as
“an important step forward in recognising the need to restore land to Colombia’s victims.”
There is a slight danger that if we criticise every aspect of progress we shall end up discrediting every attempt to make progress. President Santos has made positive statements. He has talked about the “firm and unavoidable commitment” to the defence of human rights.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been active in positively promoting human rights in Colombia, seeking an active role for the embassy in co-ordinating with civil society and the Government in recognising the importance of human rights and their defenders. On his August visit he met a variety of Colombian Ministers, including, I notice, the Minister of Defence. Are we planning any co-operation with the Colombian Government on military-to-military links, to try to re-emphasise the role of the military in a democratic society? That role is difficult for some military establishments in new and fragile democracies. We see it played out in Egypt, where the military are reluctant to submit to full scrutiny and to full exposure of abuses that have been going on for years. They are reluctant to step back from a role of assumed oversight of the welfare of the country. However, that is what the military must do: they must be forced to step back and tackle the abuses in their own organisation, and the connections, indeed, to some paramilitaries, which still clearly exist in Colombia. Are the British Government actively promoting such change in the Colombian military?
Apparently 298 members of the military have been convicted of human rights abuses, which is a positive development. When President Santos was Minister of Defence he sacked 27 military officers, including three generals, and as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, he disbanded the DAS organisation; so positive steps are being taken.
Jim Sheridan
The hon. Gentleman is right; they were sacked—but none of them was prosecuted.
Martin Horwood
That emphasises the importance of seeing such commitments through, and taking a thorough approach to transparency and accountability among the military. I was going to say that although 298 convictions sound like a huge number, the total number of outstanding cases under investigation as of September 2011 was 1,486. The figure of 298 is a fairly small percentage.
I shall not take more time, because other hon. Members want to speak. I recognise the positive work that the Minister is doing to promote human rights in Colombia, and it is welcome, but my fundamental question to him is about the concrete steps he has managed to discuss with the Colombian Government, to try to make a difference to the underlying violence and abuse that are clearly still present in Colombian society. What steps are we taking to collaborate with and support the Government in taking those concrete, definable steps?
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. The wind-ups will start at 10 past 12, and several hon. Members hope to catch my eye, so I appeal to them to be brief.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. It is timely not only because of the visit of President Santos: it is important that the House should constantly remind itself of the human rights problems in Colombia and, for that matter, other countries in Latin America. One of the sadnesses for many hon. Members who have had dealings with Latin America is the fact that it is still one of the continents most plagued by violence of many kinds, and that it is also plagued by phenomenal poverty and extraordinary wealth. Many of us hope that it will be a continent where the wealth of the land is more evenly distributed between everyone.
My hon. Friend has already outlined some specific problems of Colombia, which include the fact that 5.2 million people have been displaced, more than in any other country, and despite the fact that the population is not enormous compared with many others. The process of displacement goes on. In 2010, according to many NGOs, another 280,000 people were displaced from their land.
There is a hideous degree of corruption in many parts of the state in Colombia, including the judiciary. That is one of the problems that has led to a significant degree of impunity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North alluded, particularly for paramilitary groups of many different shapes, sizes and kinds. Indeed, Vice President Angelino Garzon said in November 2010 that
“the immense majority of crimes [against] trade unionists remain in impunity…there have been advances in the investigations…but we still have not”—
I apologise for the American English that I am about to use—
“gotten to 200 court rulings, and there are thousands of workers and union leaders killed and disappeared.”
That is absolutely true.
There are many reasons for that impunity. In particular, under previous dispensations, it was in part because the Government did not want to deal with it or punish the people responsible. In some cases, that was, as I said, due to corruption in parts of the judiciary, but in other cases, it was due to intimidation of the judiciary.
I think that the Attorney-General’s office would admit that although the sub-unit that has been dealing with specific issues regarding trade unionists since 2007 has had some success, a large amount of that success has been because of the confessions that some people made under the justice and peace process that was started back then. In fact, since 2007, there have been only six convictions in 195 cases regarding trade unionists. Lest people think that the situation is markedly better today, in 2010, within everyone’s accepted definition, there were at least 51 cases of trade unionists being murdered, and so far, only one case has been opened by the Attorney-General’s office. The process of impunity continues, not least because often, while the actual murderers may be prosecuted, the authors—those who have started, promoted and enabled the process and allowed it to continue—have rarely been touched by the Attorney-General’s sub-unit. That is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Many candidates were killed in the run-up to last year’s local elections, and still we see complete impunity regarding those cases.
When I was the Minister who had responsibility for this area, I spoke clearly to the then Attorney-General, to various Ministers in the Uribe Government and to President Uribe himself and outlined one of my concerns, regarding the nature of the law of rebellion. If we had a law against rebellion in the United Kingdom, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) would be permanently in jail. The way that law is used in Colombia in many cases brings its criminal justice system into disrepute. Many people will say, “But it is just an additional law. Someone must already have been found guilty of another criminal offence”, but that is one area in Colombia’s statute book that needs reform.
I have met President Santos on several occasions. He spoke fine words in his inauguration speech and I think he intends them, but the question is whether he can see them through to a conclusion. It is great that one of the first things he did was to achieve some kind of resolution on the relationship with Venezuela. The Uribe-Chavez mutual hatred appreciation society did no favours for either Venezuela or Colombia, in particular for the poorest people living on the border between the two countries.
I am delighted at the change in the mood music, especially regarding human rights defenders and workers. However, in the first six months of 2011, there was a 129% increase on the previous year in the number of attacks on human rights defenders. While I wholeheartedly support President Santos’s declared intentions, I want to see them pursued in reality.
Jim McGovern
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) seemed to be saying that President Santos’s visit is primarily about trade, industry and the economy, and that human rights may possibly be discussed. Does my hon. Friend agree that human rights should be very high on the agenda, rather than an aside or an afterthought?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend predicts what I am going to say. Yes, I have always believed that UK foreign policy needs to be pursued on parallel tracks. Of course we want to promote greater trade, but that trade must be based on fairness and freedom. It cannot be based just on our freedom to trade with people; it must be based on the freedom of people to live their lives with dignity and liberty. In Colombia, that has been difficult to achieve in many cases.
That is why I want to raise the issue of the European Union free trade agreement. Originally, the agreement was meant to be with several central American countries, but some wanted to pull out. Now, it is envisaged as just being with Colombia and Peru. I passionately believe that the agreement has to be a mixed one. It should not just be about trade, and so should not just be the sole responsibility of the European Commission. It is vital that when Europe pursues FTAs, they include human rights issues and issues about weapons of mass destruction—not because I think Colombia has a WMD, but because we cannot have one form of FTA in one part of the world and a completely different form in another part. It is therefore important that the Commission does not deal with the issue on its own, and that the agreement is ratified in the Parliaments of each EU member state.
For instance, in our Parliament, we could have a united position to say, “Yes, we want greater and better trade with Colombia.” I know that the Scotch whisky industry has long been keen to have an improved relationship with Colombia and, for that matter, Peru, but it cannot ignore the human rights abuses that are self-evident in Colombia and, increasingly, in Peru. I hope that the Minister will reply that that is the process we are going to adopt, although I note that the Commission keeps trying to squirm its way out, so that it ends up in a position where it decides just on its own.
I want to pay a little tribute to the British ambassador and his staff in Colombia. I will spare his blushes, but Mr John Dew is, I think, one of the finest diplomats employed by the Foreign Office. Colombia is a phenomenally difficult environment to work in, where difficult security measures have to be adopted, but he has carried that off with aplomb. I also pay tribute to the many other British people who have worked in extremely difficult circumstances in our embassy in Colombia.
I very much hope that we will not say that our foreign policy is just about trying to sell more things to foreigners. It also has to be about trying to achieve a fair world, not least because British businesses cannot do business in other countries if the rights of indigenous people are trampled on, if violence is a daily transaction that people have to make to survive, and if people do not have enough to live on.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing the debate and for his persistent campaigning. He clearly feels deeply about the tragedies that are taking place, and have been for decades now, in Colombia. He is absolutely right to continue to draw them to the attention of the House.
A low point was when we saw a British Foreign Office Minister posing and smiling among a group—
Paul Flynn
Not my hon. Friend. That Minister was smiling with an army unit that was notorious for murdering trade unionists. We have a record of plenty of indignation and horror at the atrocities that are going on, but little practical progress that we can see.
I agree with those who say that we should seize the opportunity offered by the words of Santos and give him the benefit of the doubt—there are many reasons for doubting his sincerity, due to his past. However, he is now speaking a language that no one else has spoken for a long time in Colombia. The President of Mexico has made a similar plea to the one made by Santos the other day—Mexico has lost 40,000 people in the past five years due to drug trafficking and the drug wars—to address the core of the problem, which started not last year or 10 years ago, but in 1961, when the world decided, through the United Nations, that all illegal drug use throughout the world should be eliminated. It was a simple matter: we had only to increase the punishments and the surveillance and, within a decade or two, there would be no use of illegal drugs. In Britain, we passed the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We had fewer than 1,000 people addicted to heroin and cocaine then; now we have 320,000. That pattern has gone on throughout the world. Santos is right to say that the divisions in his country, the armies that are funded entirely by money from drugs and the chaos that exists in many other South American countries are problems that we in the west, and particularly in the United Kingdom, have created.
Last week, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction published a report that identified the United Kingdom as the second largest consumer of cocaine in our continent. The other countries that use drugs in similar record amounts are the United States and Spain. The reason for the chaos in South American countries is the demand that is coming from this country. We have mistaken the use of coca and cocaine. Coca has been used for centuries, particularly in Bolivia, as an appetite suppressant and to guard against altitude sickness. The way it was ingested ensured that there was no narcotic effect. In the west, however, cocaine is ingested in a manner that produces the narcotic effect. To a great extent, therefore, the problem is ours. If we are looking for some way to reduce this, we should listen to what Santos is saying now. He is bravely calling for a new look at drugs, perhaps including the legalisation of the use of cocaine and other drugs. He realises that he is taking a great risk and that he will be mocked and denounced, particularly by the United States.
Sir Keith Morris, former British ambassador to Colombia, said:
“Those of us who have campaigned for serious debate on the issue have been frustrated by the number of senior politicians who have agreed with us but said they could not take a public stand for fear of committing political suicide due to a hostile reaction from the US administration or public opinion or, in the UK, from the Daily Mail.”
How true that is. When we talk to one another and discuss these things—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) want me to give way? He does not. We know from private discussions among consenting MPs that there is general agreement that the drug laws are disastrous and that prohibition is increasing the problem. We must take a fresh look at the problem, which is what Santos is calling for. Sir Keith Morris went on :
“The fact that the president of Colombia, the country that has paid the highest price and fought hardest in the war on drugs, should have been prepared to speak out so courageously should inspire the many in American and European political circles who share his view about the failure of the war on drugs at last to make their voices heard.”
The problem and the bloodshed in Colombia would be best undermined if there was an act of courage by European and world politicians. We must face up to the awful fact that it is prohibition that is killing people in South America and on the streets of our cities.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have been to Colombia on two occasions. My first visit was some 10 years ago. I went to the rain forest and met a community of Afro-Colombians who had been displaced from their homes. It was an experience that I will never forget. No one in this Chamber today has anything but the best wishes and best intentions for Colombia and for the Colombian people. We should recognise where progress has been made and the rhetoric has certainly changed with the new president, but, as we have heard quite graphically, the rhetoric does not necessarily match up to the reality. Human Rights Watch has said that there has been virtually no progress in bringing to justice the killers of trade unionists. We want progress now. Fine words have been said far too often in the past.
I want to concentrate on the situation that faces political prisoners in Colombia. Two years ago, I went to the country with my colleagues from Justice for Colombia. I saw the horrors faced by trade unionists, members of the opposition, community leaders and human rights activists. One of my most tragic and heart-wrenching experiences was visiting the women’s prison in Bogota. We visited patio 6, which is where trade unionists and other critics of the regime are locked up simply for defending the rights that we hold dear, including the right to protest, the right to organise and the right to freedom of expression.
Basic human rights are constantly denied and that is repeated in prisons all over the country. Leading activists are arrested and accused of “rebellion”, which is a catch-all charge used to imprison critical voices. They are accused of being guerrilla collaborators simply for exercising their right to criticise and organise. Thousands of political prisoners live a precarious existence in which they are often held for months or years without trial. They are denied due process, medical care and their freedom. Others are simply peasants who have committed the grave crime of living in a region where there is a guerrilla presence. As such, they are rounded up and imprisoned.
Examples of recent detentions include the arrest on 22 August of four members of FENSUAGRO, the Colombian agricultural workers’ union, who were detained in Putumayo. Two more of their colleagues from the region were detained, on 30 June and 7 August. All are accused of “rebellion” and continue to be held in Mocoa prison, Putumayo.
On 2 October, eight social leaders, including trade unionists, human rights defenders, teachers and students, were detained in Neiva and Caqueta. On 16 October, more peasant farmers were detained arbitrarily in the municipality of La Uribe, Meta.
When I visited the prison, I met Liliany Obando, who left a lasting impression on us. She is an academic and trade unionist who, like many MPs and union leaders, was imprisoned for highlighting the killings of trade unionists. Liliany is accused of “rebellion” and has been detained since 8 August 2008 without being convicted of any crime. Her legal process is marred by severe irregularities and arbitrary delays. The supposed evidence against her has been used in numerous cases against members of the opposition and has been ruled “inadmissible” in one of those separate cases. Her defence continues to be denied full access to this “evidence”. Her lawyers have submitted 16 appeals against what were considered unfounded legal decisions, yet all were denied, with no legitimate reason provided.
In June, Liliany was moved to a patio that she now shares with paramilitaries, and she is allowed outside for only one hour per week. The Colombian Government, through their embassy in the UK, have claimed that that action was taken for Liliany’s own safety. She has faced physical abuse from prison guards and been denied many visits in recent months. When I met her she said that
“even though we are imprisoned, we don’t give up our struggle, we retain our principles and our morals. We are women who can change things.”
Those words have been lodged in my memory ever since.
Another example is Professor Miguel Angel Beltran, who is a member of the academics’ trade union and a well known critical thinker. He was accused of “rebellion” and imprisoned from 23 May 2009 until 7 June 2011, when he was finally absolved of the charges against him. Just one day after Miguel’s arrest, the then President, Uribe, publicly accused him of being one of the most dangerous terrorists of the FARC. Of course, President Uribe was famous for describing as a terrorist anyone who suits him. He used a few fine words against me and some of my colleagues during our visit to Colombia.
Despite the fact that Dr Beltran was absolved of any crime, the Office of the Inspector General opened a new disciplinary procedure against him, based on the evidence that has already been disproved at his trial. If Dr Beltran is wrongly convicted, that will yet again prevent him from working and teaching as an academic. Ministers and the mainstream Colombian media have also continued to describe him as a terrorist. For example, in an interview with El Tiempo on 27 June 2011, the Minister of the Interior referred to Dr Beltran as “Cienfuegos”, which is his supposed terrorist alias. That was particularly concerning given that, on paper, that Minister had agreed to provide Dr Beltran with a security scheme because of concerns about his security and threats against his life. That promise is yet to be fulfilled. Instead, since his release Dr Beltran has faced threats and phone interceptions, a USB has been robbed from his apartment and he has learned of plans for his assassination, which state that it will be carried out by either forced disappearance or faked accident.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Those are just a few examples of the many political prisoners in Colombia, whose existence the Colombian Government deny. In meetings held with the Colombian ambassador to the UK, that issue causes the most anger. The ambassador vehemently denies that any political prisoners exist in Colombia. The Colombian Government’s argument is that the judiciary and executive branches of government are separate, and that the Government have no political influence over the judiciary. That is blatantly untrue. Time and again, we have seen instances of political bias in legal cases, impunity for the killers and legal set-ups of the victims. We know that, although Santos does not attack the judiciary as Uribe did, there continues to be a paramilitary influence in many cases.
Colombia’s political prisoners are not mentioned in the international media, unlike political prisoners in Burma or Zimbabwe. The majority of the British public do not know of the tragic scenarios being played out around Colombia, where trade unionists, academics and human rights activists are subjected to indefinite periods of imprisonment. They are kept away from their children and held in terrible conditions.
We do not hear of the beatings of prisoners, the mass hunger strikes or the lack of water. On 2 December last year, a prisoner died after being beaten by prison guards. Earlier this year, hunger strikers in Valledupar prison sewed their mouths up after being denied proper access to water. The response of the authorities was to attack the prisoners.
I will never forget the experience of seeing single mothers and babies being locked up over the mothers’ trade union activities. As we condemn that practice in other countries, so too must we condemn it in Colombia. This is a systematic pattern of action being used to silence critical voices and it shows that, on the ground, Colombia is very far from being the democracy that its leaders claim it is.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will begin at 12.10 pm. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate and on bringing this matter to the House. I want to highlight an issue that perhaps has not been touched upon, which is the human rights of Christians in Colombia.
The Church that I belong to and that I suspect some others in this Chamber belong to, and that many people outside of this Chamber belong to, supports missionaries in many parts of the world and it specifically supports Christians in Colombia. I just want to highlight some of the issues that concern that Church.
We are all very aware of the deadly FARC extremists who are trying to hold sway in Colombia; they are the longest-operating left-wing guerrilla group in Latin America. I want to focus on the human rights abuses and the violence in Colombia that deliberately target churches and their leaders for standing up to the guerrillas and their armed rebellion.
In the time that I have today, I just want to highlight some of those abuses; I am conscious of the issues, but I will not dwell on them too long. There is a catalogue of examples of how the FARC guerrillas have deliberately targeted churches and the work that they do. The guerrillas have tried to close the churches and stop the prayer meetings and gatherings of the people who attend them. By and large, however, the churches have managed to stand up to the guerrillas, and it is good that they have done so.
There is not only human rights abuses against Christians by the FARC extremists, but diminution of human rights and Christian activity by the Colombian state, and I wanted to highlight some examples of that state activity. The Indigenous Municipal Council has suffered a number of violations, including violations against 3,000 indigenous Christians in the province of Cauca. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said she had some difficulty with some of these Colombian words and so have I. As an Ulster Scot with a very distinct Ulster accent, it is sometimes difficult to get my tongue around some of these words. The governor of Cauca ordered property to be removed from some people in the province. On 17 December last year, a council man was murdered because he was a Christian. On 3 February this year, a Christian family were forced out of their burning home. The leaders of the Indigenous Municipal Council and 20 Christian families were also forcibly moved. A pastor, his nine-year-old daughter and a woman from the pastor’s church were killed because they stood up to the abuse of Christians. Another pastor’s wife was killed, and other people have been imprisoned. Clearly, there has been a catalogue of discrimination and brutal attacks on members of the Christian community.
There have also been political attacks on people. In many villages in Colombia, especially on the western coast, the guerrillas are writing threatening messages on walls and deliberately targeting people in the villages to get them to vote for the candidates that the guerrillas support in elections.
I also want to comment on the issue of religious freedom and on the restrictions that exist in Colombia. In 1991, the Colombian constitution respected religious freedom and practice, and it also mandated the separation of church and state, which is a principle I support. However, the Catholic Church retains a de facto privilege and status in Colombia. Also, the state recognises as legally binding only those religious marriages celebrated by the Catholic Church. Members of the 13 non-Catholic religious organisations, which are not signatories to the constitutional agreement, must marry in a civil ceremony. So I again highlight the fact that there is clear human rights abuse and discrimination against those people. Also, the Treasury Department in Colombia imposes a 4% tax on all tithes, offerings and charitable contributions to certain churches. I contribute to much missionary work—I know that other people do as well—and in Colombia there is also a 17% tax on all financial assistance received from abroad.
Those are the points that I want the Minister to respond to. I am sorry that I do not have time to develop them more, but I look forward to hearing his response.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
I call Mr Andy Love to speak. I am afraid that you have only three minutes.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing this debate and on securing it in the week that President Santos is in the UK. One hopes that not only the Minister but President Santos himself will hear the concerns that are being expressed today.
I will speak briefly about trade unionists. My hon. Friend and indeed all Members who have spoken in the debate have touched upon the habitual abuses committed against trade unionists in Colombia. During the past 25 years, 3,000 trade unionists have been murdered, often in front of their families. I will come back to that issue in a moment, but before I do so it is important that we discuss the current Colombian Government’s approach to trade union rights.
For some time, Colombia has been seeking to reach a free trade agreement with the European Union—that was touched upon by my hon. Friend—and with the United States, Canada and other countries. President Obama was deeply unhappy about the human rights situation in Colombia and talked about it in his campaign speeches. As one means of going some way to addressing the situation facing any organised labour in Colombia—workers need that help in Colombia, where people work in the most basic of conditions in a mineral-rich country, earning a pittance while making millions for multinationals—the Colombian Government agreed, under pressure, to what was called a labour action plan. That was stipulated by the Americans as a condition of their entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia. Some of the measures included in that plan held out promise of improving labour and human rights, and they were widely trumpeted as if they would resolve the labour rights situation.
Now, more than seven months since that action plan was signed, all three federations of the Colombian labour movement and the highly respected ENS trade union school have said that they were not consulted in the drawing-up of the action plan and that the Colombian Government have failed to implement the measures outlined in that plan, because:
“the State as a whole is not committed to the Action Plan related to Labour rights”.
The ENS trade union school has said:
“the new labor agenda is not a reality, since business owners and public servants continue to broadly violate labor and union rights.”
Since the action plan was signed, 16 trade unionists have been assassinated. In normal circumstances, I would have gone on in much greater detail about the problems faced by trade unions, but they have been well documented today. However, I ask the Minister: did he take these concerns up with President Santos in his meeting earlier today, and what further action does he propose the British Government take to address all the trade union and human rights violations, in the context of the trade agreement that is likely to come forward at a European level?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. The number of Members wanting to speak, intervene and listen shows the strength of feeling about the issue. The debate is very timely, coinciding as it does with President Santos’s visit.
My hon. Friend provided us, as did a number of other speakers, with compelling accounts of human rights abuses in Colombia, in particular concerns about comrades in the Colombian trade union movement. He said that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist, with 2,908 of them killed since 1986 and 23 so far this year. He expressed his deep concern about impunity, about the lack of prosecution of those responsible for the killings. He also expressed some scepticism about whether the warm words and rhetoric of President Santos, who was elected last year, would be matched by action, and about the how the land and victims law will work in practice. I shall come to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about the EU free trade agreement, and he is right that it should not be just about trade. When we enter into such negotiations, it is important to use the leverage that they give us to put human rights issues on the table as well. He said that foreign policy should not just be about selling more to foreigners, and I entirely agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) raised the important issue of the impact of the drugs trade and consumption in the west on communities in Colombia and Mexico. He said that the UK, the US and Spain are the largest consumers of cocaine. It is said that a line of coke snorted here results in a death back in Colombia—a compelling image. When President Santos addressed the all-party British-Latin America group yesterday, he was asked about that and he said that it is not just the link between cocaine consumption here and the violence in Colombia but the really serious issue of deforestation and land grabbing. We ought to factor in the significant environmental impact of consuming cocaine in the west.
We of course welcome President Santos on his visit to the UK. It is a very important opportunity for dialogue, not just on human rights but on other issues of great importance to the relationship between our nations, such as trade, the environment and working together on technology transfer. Yesterday, the President was particularly keen to flag up education, and whether Colombia can learn from and adapt our approach to training and skills in the UK, which is somewhat ironic given that the trade union movement has been so involved in pushing that agenda here. As today’s debate has shown however, the human rights situation in Colombia continues to be our gravest concern. I appreciate the President’s willingness to address that issue in a full and frank manner with the all-party group yesterday, and also at the meeting I attended with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary straight afterwards, when we discussed in depth concerns about the continued violence in Colombia and impunity, in particular attacks on human rights defenders and trade unionists.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am sorry that I missed the early part of the debate; I was in a Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a collective failure by the European Union, the International Labour Organisation and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that none of the human rights elements in the trade and other international agreements that Colombia has signed up to has been enforced at local level, and that therefore the disappearances of very brave human rights defenders and the abuse of their human rights continue?
Kerry McCarthy
I agree that past attempts to put pressure on Colombian Governments have not been effective. Impunity, at 98% or thereabouts, is a shocking statistic. It is important, and I will ask the Minister about this in a moment, that we use any leverage we have, anything within our power, to try to push that agenda along to ensure that it is not just warm words about human rights but that action is taken on the ground to protect them. President Santos was prepared to meet the non-governmental organisations today. I was not aware yesterday that trade unions would be involved in that meeting, and it is very important that they were. Anything the Minister can do to ensure better dialogue between the people from the trade union movement who have visited Colombia and the Colombian regime is an important step forward.
Anyone who has met human rights campaigners from Colombia cannot fail to be moved by their stories. A week or two ago I met some women who were talking about the shocking rise in gender-based violence and the use of rape in the conflict. President Santos was not able to explain why there has been such a dramatic increase over the past year or two, and the assessments that have been made seem to indicate that the violence is being carried out by the guerrilla movement, paramilitaries in particular, and the security forces, and that women are being targeted across the board. I hope that issue is very much on the Minister’s radar.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we tend to conflate the issues of drugs and human rights in Colombia but that human rights problems existed long before the country was effectively the centre of the world as far as cocaine production was concerned? Any solution, therefore, must not simply involve killing the likes of Alfonso Cano but have social justice at its core.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree. It is a complex situation, involving drug wars, the political situation, the role of FARC, the land grab and commercial interests. I am not suggesting that there is one solution. It is an incredibly complex situation to unravel, but President Santos’s rhetoric is very welcome. Recently, there has been significant progress in tackling some of the violence that has plagued the country over the past 50 years. FARC’s activities have been curtailed, but there is genuine concern that a more fragmented organisation is less likely to come to the negotiating table.
Does the Minister see a particular role for the UK? It has been flagged up a number of times that given our history of negotiating with groups, particularly in Northern Ireland, and given the recent decision by ETA, there might be lessons to be learnt that could help the Colombian Government in their discussions with FARC. President Santos has indicated that he is very willing to pursue such negotiations.
President Santos’s announcement in the past month about disbanding DAS, the administrative department of security, is a very welcome step given the allegations of collusion with paramilitaries, illegal surveillance, corruption and harassment of judges, journalists and politicians. The president has said:
“The country knows why we have decided to take this step,”
and that is, I think, both a tacit admission that the allegations against DAS were well founded, and an important signal that the President wants to restore the integrity of his country’s intelligence services.
Nevertheless, there are understandably still concerns about the human rights situation. In the first year of the Santos Administration 54 human rights defenders were killed, there has been a significant increase in gender-based violence, and there are concerns about the future of indigenous peoples—campesinos and Afro-Colombians—who have been displaced from their land to make way for drug and palm oil plantations and cattle ranching, which the United Nations has described as ethnic cleansing. It is not up there with the human rights abuses involving killings, but displacement is important, as is the question whether the new land and victims law will provide reparation and restitution for those people. What role does the Minister feel Britain has to play, particularly when British commercial interests are involved in such land grabs? How does he think that we can resolve the issue and return land to people?
I know that the Minister has visited Colombia twice and that he met President Santos in Peru as well as this week. He has had a lot of time to get a feel for the new regime. Does he feel that the agenda is moving forward and that we are making progress in pushing Colombia on human rights abuses? In particular, what has he learned from this week’s visit?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for giving me this first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing the debate and for his ongoing interest in the subject.
We all agree that we want to do whatever we can to reduce human rights abuses in Colombia. I do not think that I have ever met anybody who believes that British foreign policy should solely be about selling things to foreigners, so let us start with the assumption that we all have greater ambitions than that. The question is how to achieve them.
In his Canning House lecture a year ago, the Foreign Secretary set out his vision for a step change in our engagement with Latin America, and we are working to broaden and deepen our relationship with Colombia in a range of areas, including human rights, trade, education, science, innovation and environmental growth. In our bilateral co-operation, respect for human rights remains a core value. I have raised the issue on numerous occasions with the President of Colombia and many Colombian Ministers. Although, inevitably, our meeting was not as long as many would have liked, it is important that the president was willing to have discussions in the Foreign Office this morning with non-governmental organisations, members of which are attending this debate.
The debate has highlighted some of the human rights problems in Colombia, but it is important to remember the historical context. In the 1990s, Colombia was a country on the brink of complete disintegration. Guerrillas, paramilitary groups and the armed forces were all responsible for widespread abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law. Improvements have been made since that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked how we have tried to contribute in terms of the military. We have programmes specifically designed to use our expertise and insight to normalise and modernise the Colombian military’s behaviour and conduct, but that is inevitably a process. Progress is being made, and a new Colombia is emerging.
Drugs are clearly a problem. I respect the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn); he made a point about parliamentarians in Britain not daring to raise the issue. I remember the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election. Given the behaviour of the Labour party, he might choose to reflect on why Labour did not wish to raise the issue after that election.
Chris Bryant
The Minister lets himself down by those last comments. He referred to co-operation between the British military and the Colombian military. Exactly what shape does that take? It is a new policy under his Government. How much is it costing?
Mr Browne
It is not a new policy. We are completely committed to strong human rights in Colombia. We want a normalised military that observes and protects human rights rather than risking or, on occasion, abusing them. We are trying to ensure that the Colombian military has the characteristics that we recognise in our own military rather than those that we do not wish it to have. It is as simple as that. I stand by my previous point. I am in favour of mature debate about drug consumption in the west, but all politicians and all parties must approach that debate with equal maturity.
Paul Flynn
I do not want to mislead the House. The words that I quoted on the cowardice of British politicians were those of a former ambassador. Does the Minister agree with President Santos’s call for a new look at prohibition?
Mr Browne
The point I am making is that that was an example of a politician trying to make a broader point about the consumption and legal status of drugs in Britain. I suspect that the way that the politician was attacked in that election provided a disincentive for others to take the same approach.
Mr Browne
I will not, because many points have been made.
There have been improvements in Colombia. Cocaine production has decreased significantly, murder and kidnap rates have declined and Colombia is safer as a result, but more still needs to be done. As Members have said, many candidates were murdered during last month’s local elections, and attacks on human rights defenders increased in 2011. The situation is serious. President Santos has set an ambitious reform and modernisation agenda, including a policy of zero tolerance of human rights abuses. In my meetings with him and other Ministers, he emphasised that powerfully.
The passage of the victims and land restitution law is one of the President’s most important achievements to date and has been commended by the UN. It aims to return land to huge numbers of displaced people and to compensate victims, and we attach great importance to it. The Santos Government have made it clear that civic society has a key role to play in addressing human rights concerns in Colombia. The British Government share that view. To respond to the hon. Member for Shannon, our ambassadors and others are here today, and I will ask our ambassador to raise our concerns directly.
Jim Shannon
I am the hon. Member for Strangford. Shannon is down south; I am up in the north.
Mr Browne
Sorry. I do not know whether I am the first person to have made that mistake, but I apologise unreservedly.
To respond to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I have met Afro-Colombian groups and raised their concerns, as well as those of indigenous people, directly with President Santos and senior members of Government. I hope that they are fully versed in the British Government’s position.
In March 2011, the Foreign Office’s human rights Command Paper identified a chronic lack of capacity and resources in the judicial system as a key barrier to the enjoyment of human rights in Colombia. It remains a significant concern, but progress has been made. The number of prosecutions for extra-judicial killings has risen sharply, and in September, the former head of the state intelligence agency—DAS—was found guilty of criminal conspiracy for providing right-wing militias with lists of left-wing activists and trade union leaders, some of whom were subsequently imprisoned or killed. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that the problem is far from being resolved. The Colombian Attorney-General’s office is currently investigating 1,486 human rights violations allegedly committed by members of the armed forces.
Concerns have been raised about British businesses. I want to make it completely clear that our approach is to ensure that British businesses operating in Colombia and elsewhere maintain the highest standards of conduct. I repeat my offer to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North: if he has examples of specific violations, I hope that he will bring them to my attention.
A point was made about free trade agreements by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), among others. We support free trade agreements, but for the avoidance of doubt, our view is that the proposed free trade agreement between Colombia and the European Union should be, in the jargon, a mixed competence agreement. In other words, it should include the concerns that have been raised. However, as Members have said, there is a Colombian-American free trade agreement, so I hope that we will make progress, with the conditions that I mentioned.
I believe that Colombia offers great potential. It is the second most populous country in South America, and it has worked closely with Britain on numerous issues of joint concern that I am sure are shared by Ministers and Members as well. However, we take the point that a normalised, strong, healthy relationship with the Colombians requires marked improvements on human rights. That process has been ongoing, and we recognise the progress made, but we wish to work closely with the Colombian Government to ensure that dramatic further progress is made soon.
Pension Protection Fund
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I shall begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I am not aware that any of the companies to which I am connected have any current business associated with any of the issues that I intend to raise. It is, however, important that I draw the entry to Members’ attention.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss important and unresolved issues in relation to the operation of the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, and their impact on a group of former employees of Allied Steel and Wire, a number of whom are my constituents. I want to begin by acknowledging the relentless work of Mr John Benson of the Pensions Action Group, and by thanking the chief executive officer of Saga, Ros Altmann, who has been a consistent supporter of the former workers, who have been stripped of their pensions through no fault of their own.
I would also like to thank my parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), who also has an ASW interest, for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)—John Benson is one of his constituents—and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), as well as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for attending the debate. We have discussed the issues with all of them over time. I should also like to mention the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who is unable to attend the debate because of conflicting public duties, but who has been a consistent supporter of the workers.
Ever since the early part of the 20th century, Parliament has recognised the need to promote proper and adequate pension provision for those in their later years. We have seen the development of the state pension system and its refinement and adjustment in a variety of ways that still continue to this day. Overlaying that, Parliament has rightly encouraged people to make better provision for themselves through occupational or private pension routes. Again, we see that issue at the forefront of parliamentary debate. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has responsibility for the latest Pensions Bill, which is currently in another place, and there has been legislation on pensions in this House on an almost annual basis in recent years.
On the 30th of this month, we anticipate a major public services strike because of Government plans to adjust the future pensions benefits of public sector workers. The merits of those arguments are matters for another debate, but what is undeniable is that the Minister and his colleagues in Government have been at pains to stress that, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations, the current accrued pensions rights of all public sector workers will be honoured. The then Government made a similar pledge to Northern Rock workers when the bank was taken into public ownership in 2007, and matched that promise in respect of each of the other banks that have found themselves in the public sector.
The reason why such pledges are important is that the success of pension saving depends on the maintenance of trust—trust that, if someone makes regular contributions, they will in due course receive nothing less than the sum that has been promised to them. That trust was significantly shaken 20 years ago by revelations that Robert Maxwell had stolen £460 million from the pensions of Mirror Group Newspapers workers, which led to the establishment of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in 1995. From that time onwards, workers in company pension schemes had every reason to believe that their pensions would be safe. As Ros Altmann put it in a letter to the Financial Times some years ago:
“Members were told that their accrued pension rights were protected in law and that actuaries would calculate contributions, in line with the minimum funding requirement, to ensure adequate funding to pay the promised pensions.”
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is making a powerful case. I support everything that he is doing and agree with all Members present that justice has to be done for this group of pensioners. I would also like to mention that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is also present.
Jonathan Evans
I apologise for failing to mention the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He regularly attends all such debates. I had presumed that he was present for the previous debate on Colombia, without realising that he also wished to contribute to this one. I am happy to put the record straight on that and to give credit to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and his colleague, the hon. Member for Arfon, for their support for the ASW workers.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Following on from the intervention of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), many years ago, I met groups of people from ASW outside the National Assembly for Wales when they were explaining their case to Assembly Members. If we are going to have a successful pensions industry to which people are willing to contribute, we cannot let these things drift on for decades. This is not the only case, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the issue.
Jonathan Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and shall now endeavour to make some progress.
Ros Altmann’s letter continued:
“Literature from the government, the Financial Services Authority, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and everyone else contrasted the safety of final salary schemes with money purchase arrangements, where members’ pensions were not guaranteed”,
as we see from what happens on the stock market almost daily. That was the guarantee that ASW workers believed they had right up until July 2002, when the company went into liquidation. It was then that John Benson and his colleagues discovered that, despite years of parliamentary inquiry, debate and legislation on pensions, they were no better off than the MGN staff, whose pensions had been stolen. As Ros Altmann put it at the time:
“Simply to say it is a tragedy that thousands of people have had their pension expectations reduced is an insult to those who have suffered in this way. This is not an example of life’s unfairness; this is more like fraud. Other victims of mis-selling receive compensation. Having contributed their money loyally for 30 or 40 years, with the promise of a secure pension and no risk warning from anyone, many now find not that they will get a reduced pension but that they will get no pension at all.”
She went on to say that
“they would in fact have been better off throwing their contributions away, than putting them into their employer’s schemes. Is it any wonder that people are frightened of pensions and have lost confidence?”
The ASW scandal provoked a major campaign, which, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, began during his time at the Welsh Assembly. There was a call for action in this House and the workers were invited to No. 10 Downing street for tea and sympathy with Tony Blair, but more practical help was demanded by others in the House. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Cardiff West in that regard—he was certainly active on behalf of the pensioners—and to my good friend, the former Member for Eastbourne, Nigel Waterson, who played a leading role in supporting the workers and in highlighting the injustice of the situation. The Minister himself was also active and supportive in that debate. The campaign led to the establishment of the financial assistance scheme under the Pensions Act 2004.
At the time that the scheme was put in place, many believed that the outcome would guarantee 90% of expected pensions benefits for affected workers. I have read the parliamentary debates in which many members of the then Government expressed the joy with which workers would greet the news that 90% of their entitlements were safeguarded. Unfortunately, they were sold a line that was both simplistic and inaccurate.
Although schemes such as that for ASW provided up to 5% inflation proofing, the legislation cut it to 2.5%, less than half of the current level of inflation. Over time, that still further erodes the pension value and is further cut by the switch from RPI to CPI, which the Minister has also applied to the financial assistance scheme.
In parliamentary questions on 29 June 2009, one Member rightly exposed that deceit, although he was too courteous to suggest that the deception was in any way deliberate. He said:
“Does she”—
the then Secretary of State—
“accept that this 90 per cent. figure that she uses is highly misleading…because it is not just capped…there are big issues about the inflation protection? Does she accept that many pensioners will get much less than 90 per cent., and that over the years they will see annual falls in their real pensions? Will she look at those cases again?”—[Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 6.]
Of course, the hon. Member who was able to identify all those shortcomings is now the Minister himself. Let me make it clear that I am a strong admirer of the Minister. I believe that he is personally motivated to do all he can to help these cheated pensioners. I know that since the election he has met, on more than one occasion, with the ASW pensioners to examine any ways their plight can be alleviated. We are all aware of the difficult financial circumstances that the Government face. Nevertheless, Mr Benson and my constituents have pointed out to me that, in the run-up to the general election, both coalition parties heavily criticised the previous Labour Government for the shortcomings of this scheme. It was, therefore, a reasonable inference for them to draw that some action might be taken to address these failings if we were successful in the election.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that these people feel so very angry because their limited indexation is now affected by the change from RPI to CPI, which will see them losing hundreds and thousands of pounds?
Jonathan Evans
I highlighted the point in relation to RPI and CPI. I am endeavouring not to engage in a partisan debate, with the criticisms that I have made of my own side. However, I am bound to say that the fixed 2.5% inflation cap will have a much more marked effect than the CPI-RPI issue, even though I had mentioned it myself.
My constituents highlight the 100% pension protection that has been offered to the workers in the bailed-out banks. They point to the guarantee on accrued pension rights that are to be given to all public sector workers—rightly so—and the recent decision to extend those rights further, so that all workers who are retiring from the public sector in the next decade will see no change whatever in their future entitlements. They argue that, far from their situation improving, their pensions have actually worsened since 2010. Government—I use that generically, because I think it was prior to 2010—have lost their case on maladministration in the Court of Appeal, yet the recommendations made by the parliamentary ombudsman have not been honoured.
Having set out those criticisms, let me say that there are areas in which this situation could be improved. The Government should increase the inflation-linking cap. As I have indicated, the current 2.5% cap will seriously erode the pensions of affected people within just a few years, and that reduction is accentuated year-on-year moving forward. I know that the Minister understands that. As I have pointed out, he was the one who highlighted it two years ago. The Government should consider scheme-specific capping. The ASW scheme promised workers much greater inflation protection. Not only have we seen a reduction, but we have seen a reduction that, in contrast to the scheme that they had, is much less generous. The former Government removed the right of trustees to use deemed buyback after a number of schemes had taken that up. Permitting deemed buyback would assist FAS scheme members in future. The Minister could consider establishing a hardship fund for those worst affected.
The Minister has been examining the potential unwinding of annuity purchase. Annuity purchases have taken place with two major annuity providers, and I am aware that he met ASW workers as recently as 1 November to discuss the issue. Will he confirm the outcome of those discussions, with whom the discussions have taken place and whether any progress has been made?
Reduced early retirement pensions should also be permitted. There are a range of pensioners, including my own constituents, who are currently unemployed and cannot find work, yet cannot access their pension. Changing the rules would have no cost implications, because there would be an actuarial adjustment. I have a constituent who is in poor health. He could be considered for early retirement only if his doctor is prepared to say that he will die within five years. Those requirements seem excessive and wrong. Allowing early retirement, subject to actuarial revaluation, would seem fair.
Earlier today, I received an e-mail from one of my constituents, Mr Iain Kenworthy-Neale of Thornhill in Cardiff, entitled, “Fair Pensions for All”. I warn colleagues that they will all receive a similar e-mail shortly. He expresses support for the national strike on 30 November for fair pensions for all. He says that he is not impressed with the Government guaranteeing accrued pensions rights. He is not impressed with the Government maintaining current public sector provision for the next decade. He wants no change whatever in relation to public sector pensions, and he wants the Government to scrap their plans. However, Mr Kenworthy-Neale does not limit his views to public sector pensions. He also calls for all state pensions to be increased by £70 a week forthwith, and for every private sector employer to be compelled to pay pensions to their workers. He has asked for me to draw his demands to the attention of the Minister, and I am happy to do so.
In contrast, the demands of John Benson, the Pensions Action Group and all the former ASW workers at Cardiff and Sheerness are much more modest. They are merely looking for their pension promise, as underwritten by Government and regulators, to be met. I was pleased to stand with them at their protest at my party’s conference in Manchester in October. They are people of real dignity who have been badly let down by successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer them today some light at the end of what seems a very dark tunnel.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) on securing the debate and welcome the fact that a number of hon. Members have come to the Chamber to register their support for their constituents who have been affected in the way that he describes. He is right to pay tribute to those who have campaigned on the issue for a long time; I recall many such debates in previous Parliaments. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was certainly one of the principal campaigners on the issue, on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, Derek Wyatt, predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), campaigned on the issue during his time as a Member of the House, particularly with respect to the link with ASW Sheerness.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North rightly said, my involvement goes back a long way. I recall going with Mr Andrew Parr, from ASW Sheerness, and Dr Ros Altmann, to whom my hon. Friend was absolutely right to pay tribute for her role in all this, to see the parliamentary ombudsman way back when. We sat down with the ombudsman and went through all the literature that people were provided with at the time, as well as the concerns about the way successive Governments had said, “No questions asked, company pensions are a good deal.” Essentially, they had said, “Go for it.” As my hon. Friend rightly says, some people lost out very badly. That is, in a sense, how the financial assistance scheme came about.
It is worth reflecting on the sequence of events and the creation of the Pension Protection Fund, and how the financial assistance scheme fits into that universe. The existence of the PPF is germane to my response to my hon. Friend. Rightly, people sometimes ask about what previous pensions Ministers got wrong. One thing that previous pensions Ministers got right was the creation of the PPF. Going forward, people in defined benefit pensions can know that the scheme is paying a levy, that there is a sort of collective insurance and that, essentially, those who see their company become insolvent can expect to receive 100% as pensioners, and 90% as active or deferred members of the scheme.
We can all take some reassurance from the fact that for the sort of scandals my hon. Friend describes—where Governments have encouraged people to save through workplace pensions and then they find that there is an insolvency event and they have lost not only their job, but their pension—there is now pretty good protection in place, although it is not total protection. Insurance schemes tend not to be total, but they are very significant.
One criterion for what we may or may not do with the financial assistance scheme is that I believe it would be wrong to take its principles beyond what the PPF provides. The PPF is a levy-based insurance scheme. It would seem to me to be wrong to say to people whose employers are paying an insurance premium that they will get less insurance cover than those who did not. It is not their fault that they did not, but it would seem to me that that is a logical and coherent position. If we create an insurance scheme and people pay for it, that is what we think is fair provision. Therefore, the financial assistance scheme should not be more generous than the PPF. That, therefore, is part of my initial response to my hon. Friend’s first point about the 2.5% inflation cap. I take his point that we live in times of high inflation, with the consumer prices index at 5.2%, or 5% as the most recent figure. However, if we were to lift the cap on the financial assistance scheme indexation, by corollary we would have to do so on the PPF indexation. If we did not, that would be odd, and we would probably be in court by the end of the day, I suspect. The PPF indexation is funded by the levy payers, so there could be a significant additional cost from removing that cap, which would have to be met by the firms in British industry today that are continuing to run quality pension schemes, or that continue to have liabilities under them. A challenge that we face is the balance between wanting good-quality pension protection and good-quality pension provision. Every time we put a new burden on those who provide final-salary and salary-related pensions, the danger is that another will say, “Forget this, that is just another cost and we will close it.” That is one of the trade-offs.
My hon. Friend mentioned the indexation provisions specific to the ASW scheme, which were relatively generous compared with some, but, to give a feel for the scale of what we might be talking about, if we were to provide indexation along the lines of the schemes that people were in previously, rather than at a general level, it is estimated that we would add about 30% to the cost. Just one of the things on his list would add significantly to the cost.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I did not intend to intervene, but as the Minister rightly says, in the past he and I were allies at times in working on the issue. We all accept that the deal that eventually happened was not what we would have liked to see, nor was it as adequate as we would have liked—he accepted that at the time—but does he not feel some responsibility at least not to make matters worse, which is what he is doing?
Steve Webb
Let me come on to the CPI point, which is what I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Clearly, the Government took a view in summer 2010 as to the measure of inflation that they would use to uprate benefits and tax credits. There is no perfect measure of inflation; clearly, each has its strengths and weaknesses. However, as a new Pensions Minister in 2010, I received angry letters from people asking why their state earnings-related pension scheme had been frozen. Obviously, “It wasn’t me, guv”, as it were, but their SERPS pension had been frozen because “inflation” in the year to September 2009, as measured by the retail prices index, was negative.
We had a bizarre situation. I have yet to meet a pensioner who felt that inflation was negative in the year to September 2009, but, because mortgage rates were falling dramatically, headline RPI inflation was negative and, therefore, people’s pensions were frozen in 2010. CPI would have given them an increase then.
The further paradox was that, at a time of falling interest rates when savings returns were falling—low interest rates are, on the whole, bad news for pensioners, who tend to be savers rather than borrowers—we were using a negative or a low measure of inflation. That did not seem a good fit to us, particularly for pensioners, so the Government took the view that they would measure inflation using the CPI for benefits, tax credits, state earnings-related pensions, the underpin for occupational pensions and, thereby, via SERPS, public-sector pensions, and the PPF. Having decided that that was what inflation was across whole swathes of the what the Government do, it would be odd to have an island where we measured inflation differently.
I fully accept that that reduces the value of the financial assistance scheme pensions—I cannot dispute that—but that was not the purpose of the exercise, and the effect was well down the track from the decision on the CPI. It would, however, have been incoherent to have said that inflation was something different for the financial assistance scheme.
I have met Pensions Action Group campaigners on a number of occasions over many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North said, and I have great respect for what he described as their dignity and for their perseverance in campaigning, which has got the financial assistance scheme to where it is. The switch to using the CPI has reduced the cost of the financial assistance scheme in the longer term—it has had no impact in the first couple of years because we are above the cap on either measure of inflation—but other factors have led us to spend more on the financial assistance scheme than we were budgeting for. Rather than looking at a budget line that allows me some slack, I am having to explain why I am overspending relative to the budget that I inherited. The reason for that is that new schemes come into the financial assistance scheme, or we get data for schemes that we knew were coming in but for which we did not know the details, and we tend to find out that we have greater liabilities, in particular in the short term, than we had thought.
Working out what we will spend on the financial assistance scheme is not a precise science, although it is getting more so. However, it would be wrong to think that somehow the budget line has some slack in it and that we can decide what to spend it on. On the contrary, I am having to make the case in Government that we have made promises to the financial assistance scheme that we need to keep. Therefore, we have to find extra money compared with what we budgeted for.
Steve Webb
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, who secured the debate, but only because I want to respond to his comments.
To be clear, it is not the case, therefore, that some financial slack is available for the financial assistance scheme.
My hon. Friend also mentioned deemed buy-back, which is complex, so I will not say, “Here is one I prepared earlier.” Essentially, deemed buy-back is treating the scheme as if it had not contracted out of SERPS. On the face of it, we would assume that that is better, but it turns out that the situation is rather more complicated than that. At the moment, people in the financial assistance scheme have a level of certainty: they know what the rules are and they know what 90% is and is not. I entirely accept my own point from a few years ago that we have to be careful when we say, “It’s 90%,” because clearly the matter is much more sophisticated than that and there are limits, as he rightly said. However, those people have the certainty of knowing what the scheme rules are. Under deemed buy-back, they would not have that certainty while some people would get more than 100% of their scheme pension and some people less.
Jonathan Evans
Would there not be a responsibility on the trustees to form a view as to whether they wished to action that? My hon. Friend the Minister is indicating that some circumstances could be advantageous and others not, but that would be a judgment made in each case. Currently, no one can exercise such judgment.
Steve Webb
The answer might be different for each individual rather than for each scheme. How would a trustee judge? If the trustees chose deemed buy-back for the scheme and we agreed with that, might they put some members in a worse position and others in a better? How would a trustee balance the different interests of the different members? This is complex.
The other thing about deemed buy-back is that under the financial assistance scheme there is some flexibility as to when the payments are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North thinks that the ill-health provision is too rigid, but there is no ill-health early access to SERPS, so, again, the current system has a measure of flexibility that deemed buy-back would not have. Deemed buy-back, therefore, is complex and technical, and not a silver bullet. We have looked at it—in fact, we have looked at just about everything imaginable to try to find ways to provide better value to those individuals.
My hon. Friend mentioned annuities. All the way through, Dr Ros Altmann has argued that one reason that we did not get good value in the first place was that many of the schemes were annuitising, and if we had got in there quicker, we could have done better. That is absolutely right and why the so-called FAS 2 schemes, in which the Government have taken over the assets, have enabled us to improve to a baseline of 90% compared with what was previously on offer.
To try to take that further, I had a personal meeting with the chief executive of Legal & General—no reason why I should not mention it—which is far and away the company with the most of those books still going. He was content to transfer the schemes across to us on the basis of the book value in his annual accounts. His comment was, “I don’t want to profit from this, but I can’t show a loss, so it goes across at the book value.” I am not sure we have said this before, but Andy Young, who was involved in the Government Actuary’s Department and has been instrumental in all this, helped us considerably, of his own free will, to analyse all the facts and figures and so on. We have had discussions with the Government Actuary and with the Treasury. The short answer is that the book value of those contracts has already got the profit in it. Therefore, we take across something from which the profit has already been made, and the view of the Treasury, which I understand, is that there simply was not the confidence that we would get extra value—that the Government doing this would provide added value. In fact, there was a risk that we would be net losers.
I was keen to pursue that avenue and I hoped that it would provide a way for us to squeeze some extra money into the financial assistance scheme, but, unfortunately, it has proved fruitless. I am disappointed about that, which I told the Pensions Action Group members when I met them a few weeks ago. I was keen not to string them along. The very least that they are owed is a firm statement of the Government’s position. It was suggested that we might have a review, perhaps when the Government have more money, but I was keen not to create a false hope or an expectation, because those group members have been through so many stages. However, considering the state of the public finances, it would have been dishonest and dishonourable of me to suggest that we might find a little pot of money to address their concern.
As I hope is apparent from all that I have said today and through the months that I have dealt with the group, I have huge sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, but I do not believe that I can offer any realistic prospect of improvements beyond the current financial assistance scheme.
Incapacity Benefit (North-East)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Brooke, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. There has been tremendous interest in the economic effects in the north-east of changes to incapacity benefit. I was hoping for a much longer debate—a number of right hon. and hon. Members have indicated that they would be interested in participating in such a debate—but I will try to be brief.
I am pleased to have secured this debate, which gives me the opportunity to raise some important issues that affect communities throughout the north-east of England. As the title suggests, I want to focus on the economic effects of one specific coalition policy: the impact of welfare reform and changes to incapacity benefit. I shall refer specifically to a recent research report by Sheffield Hallam university on “Incapacity Benefit Reform: the local, regional and national impact”, and a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research North, the “Northern Economic Summary: October 2011”. I commend the latter report, which is the first of its kind, but IPPR North will produce it quarterly. It will be a useful way of tracking the impact of the Government’s policies on the north-eastern economy.
Before going into my main argument, I want to set the scene and to provide some context for the debate. The IPPR North report indicates that unemployment in the north-east is accelerating and is being driven by a weak northern economy being pushed into recession by public sector spending cuts, which are threatening to increase the north-south divide. The north-east, with Yorkshire and the Humber region, has faced the worst increases in unemployment in the UK. The figure for the north-east now exceeds 11%. Gross domestic product nationally suggests that the UK economy is avoiding a strictly defined technical recession at the moment, but it can be best described as flat-lining. Labour has a five-point plan to stimulate jobs and growth, but I do not want to go into that because of shortage of time. Perhaps it is a subject for another debate.
The situation for workers and those seeking work in the north-east is much bleaker than in many other regions. The northern economy could already be contracting, as the index of production figures produced by the Office for National Statistics show UK manufacturing contracting by 0.6% in the three months from June to August. Contraction in manufacturing affects the north-east disproportionately. It affects the economy in the whole of the north, but particularly the north-east because, despite the need to rebalance the economy—I am a great supporter of manufacturing—the north-east has a relatively high proportion of employees in manufacturing.
The latest job figures show that the north has lost a large proportion of public sector jobs in the last year. The figures produced by the northern TUC show that we are losing them at a rate of 2,000 a month, with almost no increase in the number of private sector jobs. In the north-east, the number of private sector jobs is declining. It has lost more than 32,000 public sector jobs, but more than 8,000 public sector jobs have been created in London, and 24,000 in the south-east. That is clear evidence of the Government’s failing regional policy.
I want to concentrate on the impact of the Government’s welfare reform policies on the economic situation in the north-east. Sheffield Hallam university’s report, “Incapacity Benefit Reform: the local, regional and national impact”, shows that 60,000 people in the north-east face being moved off incapacity benefits, 35,000 of whom will be pushed out of the benefits system altogether due to the time limits. More than 20,000 will be added to the unemployment figures.
My constituency has the highest rate of working-age adults claiming incapacity benefits in England and will be one of the most affected. In my constituency alone, 4,200 people will be moved off incapacity benefit, of whom 2,000 will lose their benefits altogether. That will have a huge adverse impact on those individuals and households, but I want to focus on what it means for the north-east economy as a whole.
If 35,000 people are taken off incapacity benefit altogether, as the pilot study indicates, that will effectively remove more than £170 million every year from the north-east’s economy.
Grahame M. Morris
I would like to make a little more progress, but I will give way when I have made my point.
That money would be in the hands of the poorest in society and would be spent in local communities, neighbourhood shops and local businesses. The clear economic argument is that unemployment would increase if benefits were cut in the region, owing to a reverse multiplier effect of credit withdrawal, because less money would be spent in the local economy. It is staggering that as the north-east seems to be heading into a regional recession, the Government are set to take another £170 million from our regional economy every year. It is even more staggering that, as employment is falling in the private sector owing to the Government’s lack of a credible policy for jobs and growth, they are simultaneously moving 60,000 people off incapacity benefit and adding more than 20,000 to the unemployment count.
The legacy of incapacity benefit is felt most in older industrial areas. The number of people claiming incapacity benefit is not evenly spread. The communities that I represent are mainly former coal-mining areas where long-term ill health is a consequence of years spent working in damp, cramped and physically arduous conditions underground. A recent review of coalfield areas by the former Member for the then constituency of Barnsley West and Penistone, Mick Clapham, reported two significant problems. He identified that incapacity benefit claims are not confined to the older generation, whose ill health was caused by working conditions. Ill health in the younger generation is due mainly to poor employment opportunities and the low expectations resulting from their marginalisation in the active labour market and has given rise to a lost generation.
James Wharton
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The topic is extremely important to him and to many of his constituents. I am a little concerned that he seems to believe that being on incapacity benefit when able to work is an acceptable end in itself. Does he agree in principle that those who are able to work should be encouraged to do so and should be taken off incapacity benefit and helped back into work? Does he also agree that, although incapacity benefit must be available for those who need it, the Government have a duty to review the system and to address some of the problems that have arisen as the system became out of control in recent years?
Grahame M. Morris
I will come to that. My fundamental point in response to the hon. Gentleman is that the big issue for us is not just worklessness; it is joblessness. We want the Government to invest in creating jobs in the private sector and generally to get the local economy moving. There seems to be little point in inflicting penury and misery on large sections of already impoverished communities when there are no jobs for them to go into. The two should go hand in glove, and I have some suggestions for achieving that.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I agree with my colleague. The figure of 32,000 that the report spoke about was released about a month ago. That figure has not been challenged by the Government. We have 32,000 job losses across the public sector in the north-east. If my hon. Friend is correct, another 35,000 will be taken off incapacity benefit, which will put up the unemployment figures. There will be a 70,000 increase in those two groups alone. There is also the failure of the private sector to move into the void. Does that not make the jobs situation even more serious than it already is?
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that intervention, which reinforces the point that I was trying to make. It is absolutely essential that we tackle joblessness; the Government have a responsibility to do that. I am concerned about the complete failure of regional policy; I am not convinced that we have an effective regional policy. We lost our regional development agency, One North East, and our regional Minister. It cost nothing to have an advocate at the top table of government, arguing the case for business, as well as for the regeneration of the whole region. It seems perverse that the coalition should abandon that, particularly when the region is doing so badly.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate that is very important for the region. Does he agree that the current process of checking who should claim incapacity benefit follows a system—work capability assessment—introduced by the previous Government? Does he further agree that that system is flawed and broken? Will he congratulate this Government on trying to do something about it?
Grahame M. Morris
I certainly would not like to do any of those things. However, there are some positive things that the Government could do to address a dire and worsening situation that many people are not aware is going to hit them in the next 12 or 24 months. There are things that the Government could and should do. Sheffield Hallam’s recommendations were clear:
“government should resist penalising the older generation, who, not unexpectedly, are suffering from ill-health.”
Instead, efforts should be concentrated on
“creating opportunities for work”
for this younger generation, this lost generation, which could prevent the problem that we have experienced with young people
“falling into a cycle of ”
dependency and
“economic inactivity”.
That often relates to mental health issues, a lack of self-esteem and a lack of aspiration, which eventually leads to
“disability and incapacity.”
We should have an early intervention to tackle this huge problem. There are lessons for Government to apply not only in the north-east, but for other former industrial areas. This is a big issue in the north-west, in parts of Scotland, in Merseyside and in the former mining communities of Wales. Claimants of incapacity benefit are usually concentrated in the same disadvantaged communities that have weak local economies with little chance of finding work. The Government must recognise that.
The authors of the Sheffield Hallam report, Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill, are also damning of the reforms, saying that there is little reason to suppose that changes will lead to significant increases in employment. Without creating the jobs first, it seems like a double punishment on the thousands of people who will be adversely affected: 35,000 in our region and more than 4,000 in my constituency.
I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond, but first I want to say a few words about the Government’s workfare programme, which seems like cynical exploitation by a Government that have already put thousands of people out of work. I want to place on the record my opposition to an extension of workfare. Where will the jobs for the long-term unemployed come from? If such jobs exist, why are they not being offered as real jobs with real wages, as opposed to benefits that carry the threat of withdrawal of benefit if individuals are unable or unwilling to take up offers?
The effects of such changes will not hurt the affluent south, but will be a body blow to the poorest areas, particularly in the north-east. At the same time as the Government are retrenching on any support for jobs and growth in the north-east, they are quick to pull the rug from underneath the sick, disabled and worst-off in society. I want to focus on the loss that that represents to the north-east regional economy and what the Government could do to limit the damaging effects.
I want to pose some specific questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Can the Minister confirm that the north-east has seen a decline in private sector employment over the last year? Does he have an estimate of what the financial loss will be to the north-east economy owing to changes in incapacity benefit? Can he confirm the figure of £170 million? Will he consider how money lost to the north-east could be ring-fenced and reinvested in the region to support job creation?
I will give the Minister a few helpful suggestions from the IPPR:
“The government should offer a guaranteed job, paid at the minimum wage or above to anyone who has been unemployed and claiming JSA for more than 12 consecutive months. The guarantee should be matched by an obligation”
because there are rights and responsibilities. If the Government give somebody a right to a guaranteed job, the individual should be obliged to take up the offer of employment
“or to find an alternative that does not involve claiming JSA.”
Will the Minister look at this proposal and whether it could be targeted as a jobs guarantee for the north-east? A jobs guarantee could be implemented in areas of the north-east where long-term unemployment meets a certain critical level or where the job density ratio falls below an agreed threshold.
The IPPR believes that these recommendations could be afforded if the proposed reduction in corporation tax was abandoned. All the evidence suggests that the reduction in corporation tax is unlikely to increase employment and it significantly benefits large finance companies, particularly banks, and companies employing fewer staff. If the Government are serious about getting people back to work—I will conclude on this point, so that the Minister has a chance to respond—they should commit to supporting our regional economy and reinvesting any money saved from changes to incapacity benefit back into the north-east directly, to support jobs and create growth.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing an important debate. It is good to see other hon. Members from his region present for the debate today. I will speak primarily about incapacity benefit and the changes made by the Government—indeed, primarily by the previous Government. It is worth spending at least a moment on the context. Every night on the television news, we see stories of what happens in countries that did not get their deficits under control. We see fiascos, shambles, rioting in the streets and Governments being overturned.
It strikes me that two political parties working together in the national interest after the 2010 general election has meant that Britain is not seeing the extraordinary bond rates that Italy or Spain have faced. We are able to borrow at modest rates because of the fiscal credibility that we have. In the context of the north-east, low interest rates are one of the critical things in giving householders money to spend. If someone has a mortgage and the bank base rate is 0.5%, that gives them money in their pocket to spend in the regional economy.
Steve Webb
I will give way in a second. There are direct consequences of the difficult choices that we have made on the deficit that are specifically to the benefit of local economies such as the hon. Gentleman’s. I will give way to him, but he has not left me long to respond. If he wants to add additional points, I will have even less time.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the Minister, but it is important to challenge the point that is raised again and again that everything has to be sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction. Is it not true that the Government’s plan is hurting but not working, and that the deficit is growing because there is no growth in the economy? The last figures I saw showed that we are borrowing an additional £46 billion.
Steve Webb
The hon. Gentleman mixes the structural deficit with the cyclical deficit. We have said that we will eliminate the country’s structural deficit. Although when the economy grows faster we get additional revenues and save money on benefit spending, we also have to tackle the structural deficit—something the previous Government failed to do. He referred to a five-point plan that simply adds more debt, and it is hard to see how the solution to a problem caused by excessive borrowing is more borrowing.
The hon. Gentleman referred to incapacity benefit, and his constituency has the highest concentration of people of working age on incapacity benefit in England. I have seen the Sheffield Hallam report to which he refers. It lists four changes that have been made, three of which—although he did not want to admit it—were introduced by the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) made that point. The replacement of the personal capability assessment by the work capability assessment was introduced by the previous Government; I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Easington supports that, or indeed the process of re-testing the stock of people on incapacity benefit, or the requirement to undertake work-related activities—all measures initiated by the previous Government. Those are three of the four measures in the Sheffield Hallam report, and it seems that each was a move in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar was right to say that the system of work capability assessment that we inherited was broken, and a work capability assessment that focuses on whether people can work or not is a positive measure. We have proceeded with the Harrington review, and Professor Harrington’s second report will be published imminently. Significant changes have been made to the WCA process. For example, we will ensure that we garner more medical information initially rather than wait for it to emerge on appeal, and we will allow Department for Work and Pensions decision makers to more readily override the Atos assessment. A lot of positive changes to the WCA process have been recognised by those who campaign on such issues, and we have refined and improved the process to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) asked the key question: what does the hon. Member for Easington want for his constituents who are on incapacity benefit? Even when private sector jobs are created, they do not go to those on incapacity benefit. There is a gap: folk on IB are stuck on IB and nothing gets them off it. We need to bridge that gap, which is where the reassessment process and, crucially, the Work programme come in, involving serious money that gets spent only when real jobs are created.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman a feel of how seriously the Government approach this issue. He referred to the ring-fencing of money, but suppose one of his constituents is on incapacity benefit but expected to be ready for work in about three months under the employment and support allowance process. If they find a job through the Work programme and that job is sustained, we will pay about £13,700 to the provider—double the £6,500 that we pay when someone comes off jobseeker’s allowance. That is a serious amount of public money going into the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although only if those people about whom he is rightly worried get lasting jobs. The money does not get paid—via a small up-front fee—if the folk do not get a job. In many previous Government programmes and new deals, people got sent on schemes and the providers were paid whether those schemes were useless or not. Under this scheme, the providers will be paid only if they get people into lasting jobs. That will benefit the local area and is an entirely positive measure.
Time limiting of ESA was an important part of the deficit reduction strategy, and the hon. Gentleman referred to people being left “in penury.” It is, therefore, important to put on record two key features of that time limiting, which are that the sickest and poorest people will not be affected. The sickest people will be in the support group, which is not time limited, and they will continue to receive contributory ESA.
Steve Webb
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me; I have six minutes left to respond to everything that he said. The people in the support group are not on time-limited ESA, and if they are regarded as inappropriate for work-related activity, they will continue to receive benefits indefinitely. The second category of people who are not affected by the time limiting are those on income-related ESA—in other words, even if someone else in the household has an income or substantial capital, they will not be affected. That means that 60% of those coming to the end of a period of time-limited contributory ESA will move to the income-related version. Those in the support group are not on time-limited ESA, and nor are those who move on to the income-related version. People not in those groups will be those who have other household income or substantial amounts of capital in the bank.
People may ask about the impact of such measures on the local economy, but we must also look at the impact of thousands of people who are stuck on incapacity benefit for years with nobody talking to them. Sometimes, people are stuck on IB for three, four or five years, with no contact at all. Nobody asks them, “What would it take? What are the barriers to work? What would help and support you?”, which shows the difference in approach taken by the new Government. We are not writing people off and leaving them on IB; we want to talk to them, identify those who could be active participants in the labour market with the right support, and have a Work programme that supports them into a job.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned regional policy, but my personal view is that having a regional Minister would feel a little tokenistic. We can have a Minister for this or for that, but will they be in the room when key decisions are made in the way that departmental Ministers will be? I am sceptical that a Minister for one region would get special treatment compared with a Minister for another region. We do, however, have a substantial regional growth fund that is worth £1.4 billion and has been popular and successful. We have now had two rounds of bidding—I could go through a long list of projects in the north-east that have been awarded funding. We recognise that additional support needs to be provided to areas that have experienced difficult economic times, and the regional growth fund is an important part of our response to that.
Many of the changes to incapacity benefit were rightly introduced by the previous Government, whether that is the work capability assessment, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, needed to be refined to ensure that we get decisions right, or the attempt to take an incredible number of people—1.5 million nationwide—off incapacity benefit. As the hon. Member for Easington noted, some of those people will be former miners who have claimed IB for a decade or more. Is it humane or economically rational to say, “Well, you’ve been on IB for a decade, you are seven years away from the state pension age so we will leave you alone, you can have IB until pension age, and then you will get a pretty lousy pension because your miner’s pension will have stopped years ago”? That is not good enough.
The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot wait until there are more jobs, but even if we waited for a big increase in private sector jobs, those on IB would not be active participants in that labour market. Ex-miners who have received IB for seven years are far from that labour market and not competing in it. When jobs are available, who will the employer choose between someone who has received no contact with the system, and no encouragement, work-related activity or training, and someone who has just come from another job? Both I and the hon. Gentleman know who that employer will choose, and it will not be his constituent on IB. We must talk to people on IB and look at who could work with the right support and who needs to be in the support group. We must enable and support those who are able to work for when jobs become available. I accept that there is currently pressure on jobs, but there is churn every day and week as people leave old jobs and start new ones. When recruiting someone new, perhaps not net additional employment but as a replacement for someone who has left, the crucial question will be whether the person on IB is a credible participant in that labour market. We believe that our policies support the north-east by helping those on IB, supporting them and paying by results when people get lasting jobs. That is the long-term answer to the pressures faced by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.
Music and the Economy
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the many other hon. Members present for attending this very important debate. Unfortunately, we have only half an hour, so I shall have to crack on. I want to talk about the UK music industry and its importance to the British economy. The music industry mainly comprises small and medium-sized enterprises, micro-businesses and creative individuals; 92% of music businesses employ fewer than 10 people. In terms of the economy, it is invaluable. I want to focus on the positives that are coming out of the UK music industry, rather than the headline-grabbing negatives that we regularly hear about.
The UK music industry is a £3.9 billion business, employing more than 130,000 people. Additionally, UK artists are responsible for 12% of global album sales. That is a phenomenal figure. The music industry as a sector continues to outperform the rest of the economy, with the UK continuing to be one of only three countries that export more music than they import. The UK is the largest producer of recorded music in Europe and the second largest in the world. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, the top-selling global artist album was by a British act—Amy Winehouse, Coldplay and Susan Boyle respectively. In March this year, UK artists occupied the top three spots in the US album chart for the first time in 25 years. Again, that is a fantastic achievement for our industry.
As a country, we are also centre stage for live music, playing host to some of the world’s greatest music festivals. Many of us will have been to those festivals, which include Glastonbury, the V festival, Reading and Leeds. Hon. Members will no doubt have heard of the Selby fake festival. That enormous event attracts thousands of people to watch some of the best cover bands. This country is also home to the most successful ticketed venue in the world—the O2 arena in London. It is therefore vital that we make the most of the next big opportunity for music tourism—the 2012 Olympics.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. One of the most important factors in ensuring that bands progress is live music in pubs and clubs, where they can develop. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to ensure that we have more live music, not less?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right. Live music is incredibly important to pubs as venues, not just for the pub’s business, but for the artist. It is incredibly important that young artists—people starting out—get an opportunity to play in pubs as venues. I shall talk about that later.
Louise Mensch
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an early intervention. It is right that he concentrates on the great successes of the UK music industry, and I congratulate him on securing this very important debate. May I ask for his agreement on a couple of points? First, will he join me in paying tribute to Feargal Sharkey, who recently retired as the head of UK Music, and in welcoming Andy Heath of Beggars Banquet, one of our greatest independent labels, who is taking over that role? The debate seems an appropriate juncture at which to do that. Secondly, will my hon. Friend join me in expressing some fear about the success of the UK music industry being perhaps undermined, by the proposals in the Hargreaves report on format shifting? There is a great deal of support for format shifting for private use, but as the UK music industry moves into global leadership with cloud services, one would not wish—
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. May I point out that interventions should be short and to the point?
Nigel Adams
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Louise Mensch). The Government broadly welcome the Hargreaves report—the Minister will no doubt talk about it—but in relation to cloud services, we must be mindful of anything that has an impact on growth. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. She also refers to the contribution that Feargal Sharkey has made, to UK Music in particular and to the industry as a whole. It is rare to switch the telly on and not hear one of his pieces of music being played in an advertisement. I certainly wish him well in whatever he does next as a venture. He has done a sterling job with UK Music in the past three and a half years. However, we can all agree that, with Andy Heath involved, UK Music is in very good hands.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great achievements of UK Music under Feargal’s stewardship has been bringing diverse voices together in one organisation that has the ear of Government, Opposition parties and the public? That is a model that I suggest the rest of the creative industries could follow, because they have not always spoken with one voice as effectively as, for example, the CBI and other business organisations, although they are just as important.
Nigel Adams
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is right about having someone such as Feargal Sharkey involved. He is a unique character because he brings experience of having done the job previously and he has enormous respect not only in the industry, but in both Houses and across—
Nigel Adams
I will give way again, but I will have to move on at some stage.
Mr Foster
I apologise; I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress. May I add my own tribute to Feargal Sharkey? He has done an enormous service to music in this country. On the issue of live music, does the hon. Gentleman share my view that when on Friday I seek to steer my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones’s Live Music Bill through the House of Commons, it would be a disgrace if any member of any party tried to object, preventing the Bill from making progress?
Nigel Adams
I certainly share that view and would support the right hon. Gentleman in that move. It is very important that the Bill is not talked out. The Minister might refer to that as well. I need to move on now, because one or two other hon. Members want to make a contribution.
It is vital that we make the most of the Olympics. Obviously, that is a sporting event, but we need to make the most of the opportunity to ensure that Britain continues to be, in the words of Danny Boyle, the film director, “a beacon of music.” UK Music’s report, “Destination: Music”, highlights the impact that festivals, which I have referred to, and other large-scale music events have on tourism, with such events contributing £864 million of gross value added to the national economy and the equivalent of 19,500 full-time jobs. Although the Olympics are not a music event, the opening ceremony offers us a huge opportunity to showcase our talent across the world.
In this difficult economic climate, it is refreshing to hear that businesses based on manufacturing the intangibles of intellectual property are the cornerstone of economic growth and, as things stand, one of the only parts of our economy that is growing. That is yet more evidence of how this diverse and uplifting industry can help our economy and must be allowed and, indeed, encouraged to do so.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that protecting intellectual property is very important for young and emerging acts as well? I am thinking particularly of young performers such as Zorzilla, Magnets and Daniel Addison in Folkestone in my constituency. They are writers and performers and need to know that their investment in their future is secure.
Nigel Adams
It is crucial that there is as much support as possible for those people, certainly when they are starting out. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I am pleased that the Conservative-led coalition has recognised the importance of the creative industries, specifically highlighting the industry in “The Plan for Growth.” I welcome the plans to remove live music in venues with audiences under 5,000 from the Licensing Act 2003. That policy has been detrimental to the music industry for too long. The change will enable pubs, which we have referred to, to host live music without navigating the red tape and regulation currently in place. The change is supported by the British Beer and Pub Association on behalf of its members. It will encourage musicians to perform in pubs as their venue of choice for small-scale events.
The creation of the Creative Industries Council has been well received by the industry and by UK Music in particular, and plans to reduce digital copyright infringement and further develop the digital market are also steps in the right direction. However, more can and should be done. We need to ensure there is proper access to finance so that more artists can get their careers off the ground. As I mentioned earlier, this is very much an industry of small and medium-sized enterprises, so we need to ensure that musical SMEs can find the finance to invest in artists.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to Feargal. On finance, has the hon. Gentleman, like me, heard about the problems with the enterprise finance guarantee scheme? Will he press the Government to address those issues?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the industry seems to be excluded from the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, and I hope the Minister will comment on that. However, I am looking forward to hearing the Chancellor’s autumn statement; I hope there will be something in it for this important industry.
I should say at this stage that it is not all doom and gloom for the music industry. I was just on the phone to my son, who is in a teenage band that has been together for four years. I asked him how the band was going, and he told me it had secured a grant from the Keyfund scheme, which is run by North Yorkshire county council—a fine Conservative council. The band has managed to raise a few hundred pounds for a recording session, and it is about to secure some more money—in the thousands of pounds—to record a video, so there is money out there. However, the hon. Lady makes a good point.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give us the name of his son’s band? It should be on the record so that we can look out for it in the years ahead.
Nigel Adams
At the risk of my son never speaking to me again because of the embarrassment that I have caused him as a teenage boy, the band is Summer City, and it is rather good. My son is Ben Adams, and there are three Bens in the band. If Andy Heath is listening, it has not yet been signed, but he can check it out. When it has made the recording it just got the money for, I will make sure that Mr Heath and the industry get a copy.
We must ensure that finance is in place and that all possible measures are taken in this climate to help the business. We must also ensure that intellectual property is properly protected; copyright law must be made relevant to the world we live in. By that, I mean it is time we caught up with our European counterparts and recognised that private copying from CD to iPod, for example, should be made lawful. As things stand, there is a grey area between what is allowed under copyright exceptions and the reasonable behaviour and expectations of most people.
On this matter, I urge my ministerial colleague to consider the effects that changes to format shifting may have on a larger scale. It is right that personal format shifting becomes an exception, but if the terms are drafted too widely, we could see an adverse effect on future innovation and potential revenue, which would be very damaging. Cloud services, for example, are an area where, if we get the balance right, music will play an even greater role in the UK’s future economic success. If we get it wrong, however, those who manufacture and create valuable intellectual properly could be undercut, which would be disastrous for the industry and those businesses.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. Two Members are standing. The debate finishes at 2 pm. Obviously, there must be time for the Minister to respond.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on securing the debate. How appropriate it is that we are having a debate on UK music and the economy on St Cecilia’s day, given that she is the patron saint of music. There is, dare I say it, a member of another distinguished band—MP4—here today, and we pay tribute to its members.
My hon. Friend strongly outlined how important music is to the economy, creating more than £5 billion. As he said, more than £1 billion is also generated by live events. In that respect, I should plug an excellent festival in my constituency, which is called Latitude. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) spoke there earlier this year.
There is a side aspect to the economic issues involved here, which is about not only music or tourism, but some of the construction work involved in creating arenas. Latitude has just committed to a 15-year contract and is now investing in its site and in other aspects of the festival. That is important for local people. It also makes the area a great place to live.
There is also the investment undertaken by Arts Council England in UK music. Although it perhaps does not invest in popular music—the Professor Greens and the like—it does invest in things such as the Aldeburgh festival, at Snape Maltings, which has made that an attractive place to live in Suffolk Coastal.
I therefore want to make a call to councils. I understand the strong economic pressures they are under, but they should think about how they use some of their arts funding and how they invest in areas. Thirty or 40 years ago, Basingstoke and Deane borough council, for example, invested in ensuring that it had a concert hall so that it would attract companies to the area. That meant that it was a nice place to be and that people did not always need to travel elsewhere to get their cultural entertainment.
I, too, support the suggestion that we should deregulate entertainment in pubs and similar venues. My council has asked me to lobby against the changes, and I have said no, because I think the Government are making the right move. I would like to go even further and try to get rid of temporary event notices for unamplified music of any kind, because it is a shame when things go slightly wrong and the brass band can no longer play at the bandstand in a concert that was supposed to happen. I am delighted that the Live Music Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath will take through the House, deals with that.
I pay tribute to the Government for their support for bodies such as Chetham’s school of music and the Yehudi Menuhin school, which stresses the excellence of such provision. There is also the wider point that children at every single school are being encouraged to play a musical instrument.
The 12 notes on a keyboard can give rise to extraordinary emotions. Six strings on a guitar, four strings on a cello and just three valves on a trumpet can really touch the heartstrings of what makes people special. I think it was Tolstoy—that master of words—who said:
“Music is the shorthand of emotion.”
That is absolutely right. We need to ensure that UK music is celebrated and supported so that it will contribute to our economic growth.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Time is short, so I will keep my remarks brief. The music industry and the entertainment business are not called that for no reason; they are called that because they are worth £5 billion to the economy, with £1.3 billion coming specifically from exports, and they employ 130,000 people. However, I want to look specifically at the impact on the north-west.
Coming from Liverpool, I like to see the city as the epicentre of creativity and the hub of the music industry. Whether we are talking about Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Real Thing, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Echo and The Bunnymen, The Lightning Seeds, The La’s, The Zutons or The Coral, Liverpool is a creative hub.
I want to look at the direct and indirect consequences of music and the music industry. Yes, music has financial implications, but it is also an emotional outlet for a younger generation and a way to let their creativity out. It can provide jobs that people might not otherwise have. People can express and stretch themselves, and they can explain their life and their whole meaning.
Obviously, I could not talk about Liverpool as a creative hub without mentioning The Beatles and what they are still worth to the city. The Beatles Story museum attracts 600,000 people every year. It is claimed that people going there over recent years have brought £20 million to Liverpool and Merseyside per year—that is just because of The Beatles.
UK Music research found that the north-west attracts 965,000 music tourism visitors per year and accounts for 12% of all such visits to the UK. It is the second biggest such destination outside London. In addition, it is estimated that music tourists in the north-west spend at least £132 million a year, which benefits the north-west economy by £56 million a year in gross value added. That also sustains the equivalent of 1,400 full-time jobs. The music industry is vital for us and something we particularly excel in. It links to the film industry, adverts, the gaming industry, TV and radio. We also have the brand-new MediaCity in Salford.
My point to the Minister is that we need to protect the industry and the creatives. We need to protect music as a financial and creative industry. We must support it to help it grow, and we must sustain it as much as possible. We must also link in the new MediaCity in Salford as much as we can, so that we get as much benefit from it as we can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a delight to appear under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on securing this important debate. The fact that so many hon. Members have attended, intervened and made speeches shows that there is large-scale recognition throughout the House of the success of the music industry, and support for it.
I wish Ben Adams the best of luck in his music career. I shall look out for Summer City, which has a ring to it. I can just hear the late Saturday night programme announcer saying, “We’ve got Ben Adams from Summer City coming on next,” and people will stay through the advert break to hear what he says.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on their important contributions. Obviously, I go regularly to the Aldeburgh festival, which is probably one of the world’s leading classical music festivals. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West recalled The Beatles, that made me recall a recent visit to Abbey Road studios, which I think still has the largest recording studio in the world. Hon. Members may have seen the George Harrison documentary recently, with the extraordinary pictures of The Beatles recording in Abbey Road. The studios still have the piano on which “Eleanor Rigby” was composed—a piano built in 1902. If hon. Members can find any excuse to visit Abbey Road studios, I would urge them to do it.
We talked about the huge success of the British music industry—and it is a staggering success, with almost £4 billion of sales. Britain is the only country apart from the United States and Sweden that is a net exporter of music, and although the major record labels may no longer be owned by UK companies, it is heartening that Beggars Banquet, the largest independent label, has had such astonishing success working with that amazing artist Adele. That leads me on to the point that was made about Andy Heath taking the helm at UK Music, following Feargal Sharkey’s resignation. I pay tribute to Mr Sharkey’s astonishing record in leading the UK music industry, and herding cats in putting things together. He was ably assisted by his second in command Jo Dipple, who I know will continue to play an important role.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I, too, pay tribute to Feargal Sharkey. The Minister rightly talks about our success in exporting albums, but I understand that if we were to take away from the equation Adele, Amy Winehouse and Coldplay, and a few other big names, we would be doing a lot worse. Does he share my concern that things are increasingly difficult for struggling artists, some of whom, in the independent sector, have made the greatest contribution because of their influence? They struggle in today’s climate, and we are in a world where only “The X Factor”-type bands and the huge sellers such as Adele and Coldplay can survive.
Mr Vaizey
We have a thriving and vibrant music scene, and no individual singer or band is guaranteed success, but it is reassuring to me—I happen to be a fan of “The X Factor”, but people understandably say it should not be the future of UK music—that Adele and other stars have risen. Adele, I think, is the biggest selling artist in the world at the moment; that is an astonishing achievement. Obviously, the Government cannot dictate who is going to survive and thrive, but that is testament to the fact that we have a vibrant music ecology in this country.
I know that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has concerns about visa issues. It is important that bands in this country should have the opportunity to tour the world, and I am happy to continue working with her on the question of jurisdictions where it might be difficult for bands to get the appropriate visas—perhaps for understandable reasons.
Kevin Brennan
That might be a stretch. Without making the debate too much of a love-fest I, too, pay tribute to the work that Feargal Sharkey did, including the ultimate sacrifice of actually playing with MP4 once or twice along the way.
Does the Minister agree that it is important for the industry to maintain that single-voice focus, which Feargal Sharkey helped to establish with the setting up of UK Music; that that put an end to the old days, when it was difficult to get a single established view from the music industry; and that it is important that that should continue into the future?
Mr Vaizey
Yes, absolutely. I agree that when UK Music came together two or three years ago, that was a real achievement. There were a number of disparate voices. I emphasise, for the benefit of all hon. Members, that Feargal Sharkey is still very much alive; the range of tributes being made might make people think he is not. He is entitled to move on, and I have no doubt that he will continue to play an extremely important role.
Among other issues covered in the debate was the importance of live music and of deregulating the licensing system. I echo the call made by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) that no man should stand in the way of the Bill that Lord Clement-Jones has introduced. Let no man put asunder the marriage between the right hon. Gentleman and the Bill this Friday. Let us hope that it passes through the House with ease. Nevertheless, there is the backstop of the Government’s consultation on live music licensing.
Copyright is an incredibly important issue to the music industry. The Hargreaves report was mentioned; a consultation will shortly be initiated by the Intellectual Property Office. As to format shifting, from a common-sense point of view it makes sense to establish regulations that would allow people to do what they do already—move from CD to iPod and so on—while at the same time ensuring that any measures that are appropriate to protect the music industry are in place. That will be part of the consultation.
There are other things whose importance I want to highlight: the digital copyright exchange, which we are not forcing on the music industry—we hope that there will be a bottom-up approach, with Government help; the recent extension of copyright for performers, taken through the European Commission; and the continued action that the Government take to combat the theft of intellectual property—otherwise known as piracy—not only through the Digital Economy Act 2010, passed by the previous Government, but through brokering conversations and deals with rights holders and internet service providers, including advertisements on pirate sites, credit card details, payment facilities being provided on pirate sites and search engine optimisation issues, and through the important progress made recently in the courts, with the blocking of the Newzbin site, which began 10 days ago.
Access to finance is of course a perennial problem for the creative industries. The Creative Industries Council, which we established last year, has one specific work stream on access to finance, chaired by Ian Livingstone from the games industry. It is important that people engage with him on issues of access to finance. I have spoken to banks about the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. I had a meeting, for example, with the Royal Bank of Scotland, to discuss it. Importantly, a recent Demos report, authored by the researcher Helen Burrows, shows that the creative industries are not as risky as people think, and that they are a good investment.
Others could take a leaf out of the video games industry’s book. After the debate I shall be going to the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts to talk to small-scale angel investors, who are being introduced to games companies. If UK Music could stretch itself even further to organising one or two investment conferences with banks and the music industry, and independent labels in particular, that could bring progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, who rightly highlighted the Aldeburgh festival, made the point that the record industry of course encompasses classical music. Although we missed a trick by not launching it today, on St Cecilia’s day, we shall shortly launch our national music plan. I gather that it is pencilled in for Friday; it is a constantly moveable feast, as we seek to improve it more and more. However, the key point about the national music plan is the music education hubs that will sit at the heart of it. I hope that those will bring together local authorities and organisations such as the Aldeburgh festival to provide a wider offer to children in schools. The money has been secured for local authorities, but we want to put a system in place to secure the participation of the much wider ecology of the music industry locally, whether that is local orchestras, the brass band or the Aldeburgh festival.
We have had a good-natured and well-tempered debate in which hon. Members from both sides of the House have united to emphasise our support for the music industry. We have highlighted the key issues that affect it: education in schools, copyright, access to finance and live music. The Government are focused on all those issues, and I am grateful for the participation and input of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Council
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
In advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Brussels on 24 November, I am writing to outline the agenda items to be discussed.
The first substantive item on the agenda will be a report on the progress of negotiation of the draft directive on energy efficiency. Given the complexity of the directive, progress since negotiations began in July has been limited, although a welcome start has been made in addressing over-prescription and a lack of flexibility in the draft directive. The Government support measures to encourage greater energy efficiency across the EU and look forward to more work being done on this dossier under the Danish presidency, for whom it is a priority.
The Commission will then present its proposal for a regulation on the safety of offshore oil and gas activities, which is intended to reduce the chances of a disaster similar to the one in the gulf of Mexico from happening in European waters. The UK welcomes the fact that many of the requirements in the proposed regulation appear to mirror key elements of the UK’s existing offshore safety regime, although we have serious concerns over the practical effect of a regulation on the administration of our current regime.
There will be a presentation by the Commission of the proposal for a regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and a first exchange of views on the draft regulation by Ministers, based on questions proposed by the presidency. The UK welcomes the publication of the draft regulation, its focus on cross- border infrastructure projects and its acknowledgement of the role that the tools in the third package of energy market legislation will play in incentivising investment in electricity, gas and other networks necessary for the move to a low-carbon energy economy, while preserving energy security. While we welcome efforts to improve permitting processes, flexibility is key. Member states have their own pre-application and consent procedures reflecting their own particular needs and circumstances so this will need to be considered when determining how “best practice” might be developed in this area.
The presidency will present a progress report on the main actions and initiatives taken in response to the conclusions agreed at the European Council and the Energy Council in February. The report covers five policy areas where deadlines or priorities have been set: energy efficiency, internal energy market, infrastructure, external energy relations and nuclear.
The agenda includes two items on the external dimension of EU energy policy. The presidency is aiming for adoption of Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication on European external energy policy. We are broadly content with the conclusions and with the amendments we have secured, which aim to ensure that the Commission respects the existing balance of EU/member state competence under the treaties— in particular, in relation to co-ordinated messages in international forums such as the IEA, IAEA and G20 etc. The Commission will then update the Council on a number of EU external energy relations issues.
A number of member state delegations will present information to the Council on issues of concern to them.
Over lunch Ministers will discuss the implications of individual member states’ choice of national energy policy for European energy objectives and receive a presentation on the International Energy Authority’s World Energy Outlook 2011 from the IEA’s executive director.
Committee on Standards in Public Life
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The 13th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life has been published by the Committee today. I have laid the report before the House and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Coastguard Modernisation
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I will be making an oral statement later today.
Grand Committee
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
My Lords, before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should make it clear that the Motions to approve statutory instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, in 2006, Parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which provided a number of powers, including the power to regulate advertising and trading in the vicinity of Olympic and Paralympic venues. It was recognised by Parliament that tailored provision was needed for the Games to act as a stronger deterrent to ambush marketing and illegal trading, and because existing powers alone are not adequate for a major, time-critical event like the Games. We need these regulations to protect against ambush marketing as well as ensuring that spectators can access venues safely.
With an expected global audience of up to 4 billion, there is no doubt that there will be concerted attempts to ambush the Games, but in drafting these regulations we have recognised that we need to strike a balance between our objectives and ensuring that regular business can carry on to the greatest extent possible. These regulations must go no further than is necessary.
To ensure that we have got the balance right, we have sent the draft regulations to those who will be affected and we have listened carefully and amended the regulations in light of their views. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport launched a wide-scale consultation in March of this year. More than 600 people or agencies were directly contacted about the consultation and a leaflet was delivered to every letterbox within the proposed regulated zones. In addition, officials have spent the last few years meeting representatives of the advertising and trading sectors. In total, 51 written responses to the consultation were received from a range of stakeholders. The small response is, I believe, a reflection of the extensive informal consultation since 2006. Those who replied generally supported the approach, and any suggestions tended to be technical in nature.
In drafting the regulations, consideration has been given to the fact that ambush marketers will look to find new and innovative ways to associate brands with high-profile events. Accordingly, broad definitions of advertising and trading activity have been crafted, with a number of specific exceptions. Many of those exceptions allow for existing business or activities to continue; so, for example, public protest activity is specifically exempt under these regulations. Advertising or trading activity that is not exempt, and so could present a risk to our objectives, may still be undertaken if it is authorised by the ODA, for trading, or LOCOG, for advertising.
Unlike previous host cities, some of which have regulated a kilometre outside of venues, these regulations apply only to event zones comprising, in most cases, the venue and the area a few hundred metres around it. In a few cases, the event zone goes slightly further so that we can protect key places, primarily for when spectators walk from a major transport hub.
Like the event zones, the event periods are tailored to each Games event, “switching on” the day before and lasting only for the period of an event. The longest the regulations will apply to any one place is 35 days in the areas around the Olympic Park, and that period is not in one block, as the regulations switch off for the period between the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Under the 2006 Act, the regulations may be enforced by the police or by enforcement officers designated by the ODA. With the police’s agreement the ODA will take the lead on enforcement, freeing up the police to focus on safety and security. Police will of course provide back-up as necessary. The ODA is looking to designate enforcement officers from local authorities. They undertake the enforcement of existing laws on street trading and advertising, so the ODA is utilising a knowledgeable and experienced resource. Local authorities will get funding for this resource, which will enable them to backfill their current roles through overtime and cancelled leave. Officers will be trained to take a light-touch approach to most infringements but persistent offenders could face having offending items seized or destroyed. To reassure your Lordships, the ODA’s enforcement strategy has been seen and approved by the Sports Minister, who is keen to ensure that proportionality is the touchstone.
The ODA has recently published detailed guidance on the regulations. This provides simple information about the regulations to ensure that those affected understand what is expected at Games time. Local authorities and advertising and trading bodies are all engaged in the process of reaching those individuals and businesses affected. The IOC requires all bidding cities to commit to take steps to prevent ambush marketing around Games venues. Sydney 2000 was the test case; since then, other host cities have taken similar steps. I believe that the regulations we are debating provide a robust yet proportionate framework for dealing with ambush marketing as well as ensuring safe access to Games venues. I beg to move.
Baroness Billingham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear presentation, reminding us of the background to this SI and the justification of the measures contained in it. As ever she is accurate and persuasive, leaving little room for objection from this side of the Committee. While there are one or two matters which I will raise later, in essence this SI is the completion of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. As such, it is a key factor in ensuring the smooth and safe running of the Games.
The scope of the SI encompasses the need for the 2012 Games to be a joyful event—a shop window for the UK of which we can be proud. It is also essential to prevent ambush marketing around the various venues and it has to ensure easy access to those venues. I very much hope, in relation to that last point, that both LOCOG and the ODA will take note of the lessons from the catastrophic shambles at the end of the Nadal match at the O2 on Sunday night. The three-set match, which was begun at 8 pm, finished at 11.30 pm. As a result, 2,000 people were left stranded at the North Greenwich tube station, with the last train leaving before midnight. I am told by friends that the dash for that last train had the potential for disaster and one has to ask whether Boris Johnson could not have foreseen the need to supply later trains. If such a predictable shambles can ensue from one match at one venue, the need for forensic planning could not be clearer.
Part 2 of the regulations deals with advertising activity in the event zones. A light touch is crucial, so the clear guidelines ensuring that legitimate businesses can continue their day-to-day advertising and activities are very welcome. The trading activities parts of the regulation are sensible and, indeed, essential. Enforcement of advertising and trading regulations will require a high level of experience and qualification. LOCOG is approaching local authorities to lease experienced officers to work during the Games.
Despite the Minister’s assurances, some concerns remain. Given the economic climate, with local authority budgets being slashed by the Government, is there now a potential problem that there will be a shortfall of the officers required? We also debated long and hard the effect on travel to and from the Olympic sites. We were assured that the adverse effects would be kept to a minimum, but we on this side are still concerned that local companies unable to trade are being made to close down for that two-week period. Surely this would put their viability at risk, and we hope that LOCOG will come up with some more consensual proposals. With these concerns, I again thank the Minister and the Bill team, which gave us an excellent briefing, and pledge full support from this side of the Committee for an SI which will complete the original aspirations of the 2006 Act for a wonderful and successful Olympic Games.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I have very few words to say on this order. First, it seems to be in line with what we were expecting. Anybody who has been involved in this knows that a great part of the Olympic movement has been the defence of the brand to allow sufficient funds to be raised to enable everything to go ahead. This was always going to inconvenience people to a degree. The question here is whether the Government and the entire Olympic movement have done enough to ensure that that minimal level of interference with ordinary life has been achieved. I suspect that they have taken some very good steps towards it.
When it comes to ambush marketing, everybody raised a smile at the thought of the last World Cup when all the, shall we say, very presentable young ladies in orange skirts were seen dancing around. The fact of the matter is, however, that the way these events are financed is by making sure that sponsors get in and get a reason to carry on sponsoring them, which is the most important factor. I thus suggest that the Government should be intelligently vigorous in enforcing this, because if they are not—and this is the important factor—future events will be threatened. This will be part of one of the legacy issues: do sponsors of major sporting events have sufficient backing to make sure that they get enough bang for their bucks to come back next time? I hope my noble friend will be able to assure us that this will be looked at in the overall review at the end of the Games process to make sure that sponsors are looked after in an intelligent way that does not stop all life during the Games.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I understand that the point raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on this order—namely, that it would not be appropriate to have an order approved by negative resolution unless the Minister had given an assurance that it was necessary to proceed in this way for reasons of urgency—has already been met in the legislation which we have amended. I think that is a satisfactory situation.
I apologise, since I entirely share the enthusiasm of other noble Lords for the entire success of the Games, for raising just one point which I had not previously noticed. It relates to Regulations 6 and 7 of the order on page 4. Regulation 6 is concerned with the control of advertising activity, and we all understand the reasons for that, as has just been mentioned by my noble friend when discussing the whole question of sponsorship. However, I am concerned about Regulation 7(1), which says:
“Regulation 6 does not apply to advertising activity intended to—
(a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,
(b) publicise a belief, cause or campaign, or
(c) mark or commemorate an event”.
It is really sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) which give me some cause for concern, given the recent protests which we have had outside St Paul’s. I am not at all clear why we want to make this exception in Regulation 7. On the contrary, I would have thought there was some case for strengthening the proposals for that. Indeed, we may want to make absolutely sure that provision is made to prevent demonstrations. As was pointed out in previous remarks, in the course of the Games it may be very easy to get enormous publicity for a particular cause, whatever it may be. Therefore, I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us to what extent this has been considered and whether there is some argument in favour of strengthening or amending the order; or in favour of producing an alternative that makes it absolutely clear that demonstrations of the sort that I have described are prevented from getting advertising as a result of taking place, perhaps to the considerable disruption of those wishing to watch the Games, which we hope will be a great success.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Higgins for their contributions to the debate and their customary attention to detail in the matters that we are discussing today. We appreciate that these regulations may raise concerns but we believe that they strike the right balance, allowing business as usual to continue wherever possible. That point was raised by noble Lords in today’s discussion. Detailed measures have been put in place to ensure that businesses will be able to continue to run as usual in the course of the Games.
I shall just deal with some of the issues that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, raised concerns following the tennis match that finished after the Tube had stopped running, leading to crowds appearing on stations. This is a very important issue. All the Olympic events will finish well before the last Tube trains leave. The ODA and LOCOG are looking carefully at access to and egress from each venue individually to make sure that there is sufficient transport for people to be able to get home at the end of events.
The noble Baroness asked how much the enforcement would cost, who will pay for it and whether there are enough people to do it. The ODA, as the responsible and accountable agency has budgeted for this work. It is estimated that £868,000 will cover the full range of costs associated with enforcement. Within this budget, the ODA will pay a fixed hourly rate per designated enforcement officer to the employing local authority. That hourly rate is sufficient to cover salary costs, expenses, travel and subsistence, storage costs for seized articles, administration and the gathering of intelligence data—all the aspects that will need to be replaced.
The noble Baroness asked whether the ODA officers would be trained. Indeed, a programme of training has already begun. Officers have already taken part in mock enforcement trials at a London 2012 test event. This will continue next year. The training integrates practical knowledge of the Act and regulations with a detailed understanding of the ODA’s enforcement policy. It includes practical examples of likely situations that may arise based on past learning, test events and hypothetical situations that have been highlighted as potential areas of concern during the passage of the Act and the regulations.
My noble friend Lord Addington asked whether there will be vigorous enforcement. Indeed, in looking at the Games, we will examine how the regulations were enforced and come up with lessons learnt. He is quite right in assuming that all the regulations before us have been previously agreed, and that we are finally putting the seal on them in advance of the Games.
My noble friend Lord Higgins asked about the exemption for demonstrations publicising a belief, cause or campaign and so on. Protest and other activity intended to demonstrate support for or opposition to a person’s view or actions is specifically exempt. The exemption covers advertising a belief or cause, or marking or commemorating an event. That would include charities. However, discussions with Liberty prior to the consultation were useful in ensuring that this category was soundly drafted. Indeed, no human rights groups responded to the consultation. Therefore, advertising that promotes a local non-commercial event of a religious, educational, cultural, political, social or recreational character is allowed unless it is sponsored by a private company. This allows for general non-commercial activity but protects against a large company using the exception to get its name plastered over local events and consequently ambushing the Games. However, I stress that these regulations are not about stifling political speech. Protest activity is specifically exempt and will not be restricted by these laws.
I hope that I have responded to most of the points raised today. It is a great relief to be working on a Bill where there is cross-party consensus and that we all have a common aim in ensuring that the Olympic and Paralympic Games next year are a resounding success. I thank opposition noble Lords and my noble friends for the discussions that have taken place over this instrument and the Games legislation. I know we all want to ensure that the Games are a magnificent success. With these regulations, we hope that we have mitigated the risks in a proportionate manner which recognises that London and the UK need to continue operating at Games time.
Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to implement the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for Wales in four interim review reports in relation to the boundaries of certain constituencies and electoral regions of the National Assembly for Wales. If approved, these changes will alter seven of the existing 40 constituencies for the next Welsh Assembly elections, which are scheduled to take place in 2016. This is, however, subject to the commitment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has given to look carefully at the implications of having different boundaries for Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies in Wales.
I should perhaps clarify at the outset that the order affects Welsh Assembly boundaries only and has no impact on the boundaries of any Welsh parliamentary constituencies at Westminster.
I wish to put on the record thanks to the Boundary Commission for Wales and its secretariat for its work in carrying out these reviews. As always, the commission has carried out its duties thoroughly and conscientiously. I particularly thank the deputy chair of the commission, Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, for overseeing this work.
Lord Rowlands
I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he said that this order did not have anything to do with the parliamentary boundaries, so why does it have the words “Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions” in its title?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is a very good question and I hope that the answer I give will satisfy the noble Lord. He will know that this is an amendment order and it is amending the Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006. However, I think we are clear that it will affect only the Assembly constituencies. A smaller number of people are affected. Nevertheless, for the electors and the relevant Assembly Members concerned, these are important. I am sure that MPs in the other place whose constituencies cover the areas affected will have been interested in the changes; indeed, they were debated there yesterday.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, may I suggest that we allow the Minister to lay out his stall, as it were? It may well be that he covers noble Lords’ points in his opening remarks.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
I was intervening simply because my noble and learned friend referred to the small number of people affected, and indeed the Explanatory Memorandum to the order refers to the first report dealing with Brecon and Radnorshire, and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, as affecting only 18 electors. Could he say how many people in total are affected by the order?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If I am right, I have those details and will come to them in my remarks. The position is that the Boundary Commission for Wales is an independent body that is responsible for reviewing parliamentary constituency boundaries in Wales. Prior to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, Welsh Assembly constituencies were coterminous with United Kingdom parliamentary constituency boundaries. Formerly, as well as carrying out general reviews of all parliamentary constituencies every eight to 12 years, each of the four boundary commissions in the UK was empowered to carry out interim reviews of particular constituencies in between those general reviews, if that was thought necessary. Such reviews could, for example, take account of changes to local government boundaries that affected the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies.
The 2011 Act provides for more frequent general boundary reviews—they will now take place every five years—which will help to ensure that general reviews are better able to take account of changes in the electorate or changes in local government boundaries. This makes it less important and less practicable to have interim reviews, and the Act removes the provision for the boundary commissions to undertake interim reviews in between general reviews.
The Boundary Commission for Wales was the only boundary commission to be engaged in interim reviews while the PVSC Act was going through Parliament. That Act provides for any interim reviews of parliamentary constituencies by the Boundary Commission for Wales that were pending at the time of the passing of the 2011 Act to be completed and implemented, though the recommendations arising from the reviews will apply only to Welsh Assembly purposes. As the 2011 Act requires the Boundary Commission for Wales to carry out a general review of all Welsh parliamentary constituencies by October 2013, there is no need for the recommendations arising from the interim reviews to be applied to Welsh parliamentary constituencies as they will soon be overtaken by the general review.
The draft order implements the recommendations of four such pending reviews by the Boundary Commission for Wales. The reviews make recommendations regarding the boundaries between the following constituencies: Brecon and Radnorshire, and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney; Ogmore and Pontypridd; Cardiff North, and Cardiff South and Penarth; Cardiff South and Penarth, and Vale of Glamorgan. The Boundary Commission for Wales carried out the reviews as a result of four orders made by Welsh Ministers during the period 2008 to 2010 that made changes to the boundaries to local government areas in Wales. As a result, the boundaries between certain parliamentary constituencies in the areas covered by the local government boundary changes no longer followed the new local government boundaries.
In each review, the boundary commission proposed that the boundary between the parliamentary constituencies covered by the review should be altered to conform to the new local government boundaries. It also proposed that there should be a corresponding change to the boundary between the Assembly electoral regions in the areas concerned, where this was affected by the new local government boundaries. As I have said, these changes involve relatively small changes on the map and relatively few electors—approximately 900 in total; in answer to my noble friend’s question, I will shortly come on to a breakdown of some of those figures—but obviously they are significant for electors locally. For example, with regard to Brecon and Radnorshire, and Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, a number of electors have been transferred to a local authority since the review transfers the constituency, and indeed the region, for the purposes of elections to the Welsh Assembly. The order addresses misalignments between Assembly and local authority boundaries.
As I said, in total four representations were received on the proposals in the four reviews. They included one from Mr Owen Smith, the honourable Member for Pontypridd, who I understand wrote to support the recommendations in relation to the Ogmore and Pontypridd seats. In each review, no objections were received and the commission therefore confirmed its recommendations in its final report to the Deputy Prime Minister.
As I said, the draft order gives effect to the recommendations made in the four Boundary Commission reviews without modifications by amending the earlier Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) Order 2006. The core of the order is Articles 3 and 4, which implement the recommendations by inserting new provisions into the 2006 order which will fix the Assembly constituencies by reference to local government areas as they stood on 1 December 2010.
Eighteen electors move from the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency to the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and, in doing so, they move from the Mid and West Wales Assembly regions to the South Wales East region. In the review concerning the Ogmore and Pontypridd constituencies, 733 electors move from parts of the Ogmore constituency to the Pontypridd constituency, while 96 move in the opposite direction, meaning that a net total of 637 electors move to the Pontypridd constituency. Again, that is a net figure of those who move from the South Wales West Assembly region to the South Wales Central region. Forty-six electors move from Cardiff South and Penarth constituency to the Cardiff North constituency, and, as they are both in the same South Wales Central region, that does not make any difference to the regions. Three electors are transferred from Cardiff South and Penarth to the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, and, again, both seats fall within the South Wales Central electoral region. I hope that that answers the detailed question posed by my noble friend.
Articles 5 and 6 make consequential changes to other provisions in the 2006 order, and Article 7 requires the relevant electoral registration officers for the affected areas to make the necessary alterations to their electoral registers. These are standard provisions in orders about boundary changes.
It is perhaps important to point out that the draft order will have no practical effect until the next Welsh Assembly general election scheduled for 2016. In the mean time, any by-elections for the Assembly which might occur in the areas affected will take place on the existing boundaries.
These changes are relatively small updates to the existing boundaries. The Government recognise that a wider debate has begun in Wales about future arrangements for the Assembly in the light of the forthcoming reduction in the number of UK parliamentary seats in Wales. We are looking at the implications of this reduction on the Assembly, and I can assure noble Lords that any decision in favour of change would be taken only following thorough public consultation.
I hope that that has given an explanation of the draft order. I commend it to the Committee and hope that we will be able to agree that this order should proceed. I beg to move.
Baroness Gale
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving his explanation of the order. He said that the numbers were small and that it was more or less a tidying-up operation in terms of the boundaries.
In October 2010, the Boundary Commission for Wales submitted a report that affected the constituencies of Brecon and Radnorshire, where 18 electors were affected. In January 2011, the Boundary Commission submitted a further three reports. Those affected the boundaries of Ogmore, Pontypridd, Cardiff North, Cardiff South and Penarth, and the Vale of Glamorgan. Again, small numbers are affected, except in Pontypridd, where the number is 600-odd. By that time, we were in the run-up to the Assembly elections, so there was no time to implement the changes, but we hope that the changes in the order before us today will be ready for the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections.
Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Notes says that,
“the Order is being brought forward in good time for the next Welsh Assembly elections”.
Paragraph 9.1 says:
“The changes being made … will be applicable for the next elections for the National Assembly for Wales, currently scheduled for 2016”.
Although this all seems very straightforward, I am sure the Minister, who mentioned it briefly, is aware that there is a big row brewing over this. We need clarification.
As I say, it seems straightforward enough but I need to ask whether the Minister is aware of the differences between this order and what the Secretary of State for Wales said, on record in the House of Commons, in answer to a question on 11 May 2011 from the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dynevor. He asked:
“Given the Labour party’s opposition to decoupling Westminster and National Assembly constituency boundaries, would it not make sense to base the make-up of the fifth National Assembly on 30 regional and 30 constituency Assembly Members?”.
The Secretary of State’s response was:
“That is a very interesting thought. Hon. Members are well aware that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 broke the link between Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies. I have agreed that we need to look carefully at the implications of having constituency boundaries relating to different areas and regions for UK and Assembly elections … I am taking the hon. Gentleman’s question as a recommendation that we have 30 first-past-the-post seats and 30 elected on a list system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/11; col. 1148.]
She said that she is looking at that suggestion. That response is a little different from what we have before us today.
On 30 July the Secretary of State, again answering questions relating to the boundaries, had a meeting with the Welsh Affairs Committee, at which my honourable friend Owen Smith asked her whether it was true that Welsh officials had,
“recently met the Boundary Commission and political parties in Wales and said at that meeting that they were looking for a legislative vehicle to address changing the boundaries of the Assembly constituencies in Wales?”.
In her reply the Secretary of State said:
“As far as I am concerned, we will have to look at that”.
This is very confusing. I do not know whether the Minister has had time to look at the Western Mail this morning. I am glad to see that he has. He will have read the headline:
“First Minister’s startling appeal to David Cameron bypasses Cheryl Gillan”.
The Western Mail says:
“First Minister Carwyn Jones has bypassed Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan and gone directly to the Prime Minister in a bid to defuse an explosive row over how AMs are elected”.
The Minister mentioned that briefly at the end of his speech. What we need in Wales is clarification that the order before us will be used for the election in 2016, and for the Minister to confirm that any changes to any of the systems in Wales will be as a result of the wishes of the Welsh people. This is a big row in Wales. I hope that the Minister appreciates how important these issues are, and that he will confirm that our arrangements today will be met in the 2016 elections.
Baroness Randerson
Noble Lords will forgive me if my comments are very brief, for obvious reasons; it is not easy for me to project my voice today. In my first points I will concentrate on what is in this order, not on what is not. Having read it, I confirm—and agree with the Minister—that the order appears to affect very few people and does not make significant changes. There were no representations against it to the Boundary Commission. It decouples the Westminster and Assembly seats. I ask the Minister to confirm that such decoupling exists satisfactorily in Scotland and is a workable solution.
I know that the Labour Party is concerned about the reduction in the number of constituencies for the general election. We should all welcome the fact that the number of constituencies is maintained in this order, which will not affect Assembly elections and, therefore, the total number of Assembly Members. I am aware of the First Minister’s letter to the Prime Minister asking that there should be no change to the system, and it is clear that this is the default position that is put in place by this order. The noble Baroness has referred to exchanges in the House of Commons; Peter Hain MP has made it clear that he would like Wales to move to a situation where each constituency is represented by two Assembly Members, which would do away with the proportionality of the system in Wales. That is something which would case a great deal of concern across other parties and the electorate, because that was the settlement that was put to the electorate at the time when the Assembly was established. It is therefore very useful for us to have a clear default option that—whatever the discussions that are going on or the thoughts of the Secretary of State for Wales, and whatever the thoughts of the First Minister of Wales might be—it is important that we acknowledge that this is a settled situation ready for the next Assembly elections in 2016.
Lord Rowlands
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly, partly because one of these orders amends the constituency which I had the privilege of serving. I, too, am somewhat puzzled by the point made by my noble friend—in particular, not on the rights and wrongs of the argument, but on the wording of the Explanatory Memorandum under the title “Guidance”. It says:
“The changes being made by the Order will be applicable for the next elections for the National Assembly for Wales, currently scheduled for 2016”.
It does not say “may be” or “could be” or “subject to further possible change”; it is an absolute statement meaning that when we approve this order, it will establish the constituency boundary for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in the 2016 Assembly elections. I am puzzled by the conflicting guidance that we are getting from the clear explanatory note and other statements that have been made. I speak as the former Member for this constituency and am a great believer in expansion and all 18 new electors who are added to it.
The Merthyr/Brecon boundary has a wonderful chequered history. The enfranchisement of Merthyr in the first place, which was the very last amendment to the then Reform Bill 1832, included in the constituency at the very last minute Cefn Coed-y-Cymer, which is in the Vaynor area. Some time later it went out and then it came back in, and I had the privilege of serving the Vaynor ward as a part of the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency. There is a bit of a history to this Brecon/Merthyr boundary discussion.
The point I find comforting about this order is the way in which it powerfully reaffirms a very good principle that I fundamentally support, that there should be a clear correlation between community boundaries and Assembly and parliamentary constituency boundaries. The Boundary Commissioner and we have all agreed that what we are doing here is altering boundaries, albeit in small measure, to ensure that we confirm and conform to the principle that there is an excellent correlation between community boundaries and parliamentary and Assembly boundaries. Therefore I find it richly ironic that this order is made under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, the very Act which most of us fear is going to destroy and undermine that close relationship. We cannot see how, in pursuit of this holy grail of equalisation, we will actually be able to maintain and sustain the close correlation between local community boundaries and parliamentary constituency boundaries. I find it richly ironic that this order is being used to confirm a great principle, while the Act itself, we fear—and the Boundary Commission’s report is coming out—will undermine that very principle. Therefore, I fear I must tell the Minister that, while there is consensus on this order, I doubt if there is going to be consensus on any future orders.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I apologise for arriving a few minutes late, but I mistimed the matter. I agree very warmly indeed with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, on having communities coterminous with seats. I believe that that should be fundamental to our approach.
I, too, share some of the mystery that was expressed by the noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench with regard to exactly where we are going over the next two or three years with this matter. I noted that the Secretary of State for Wales said in a Written Statement on 11 October that the Silk commission, which is looking into many aspects of these matters in Wales—the Minister will be well familiar with that—will explicitly not be examining,
“in part II, the structure of the National Assembly for Wales, including issues relating to the election of Assembly Members”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 28WS.]
We know that Silk is not looking at it and that an issue is arising. If this unfortunate legislation which has just been passed regarding the Westminster boundaries will be in place, what therefore will be the process for reviewing—if review is needed—the National Assembly, to try and make sure that there is some coterminosity to the extent that it is possible? I do not think that it is possible to get anything like the coterminosity that I ideally wish to see, but at least there should be some review.
It is therefore right to say that if there is a review, these will not necessarily be the basis for the 2016 election. Some clarification is needed about the future role of the Boundary Commission for Wales which, if we continue with the present system, will be preparing different reports for Westminster and for the Assembly elections. There is a question as to whether there will be an increase in the number of commissioners and in the funding that they will have in order to undertake those dual roles, running in parallel with each other and causing some confusion.
Lord Wigley
As I was saying before we were interrupted, a question remains about the mechanics for sorting out any changes in Wales and whether the Boundary Commission is going to do this itself. Will decisions about National Assembly constituencies be taken solely in Wales or debated in a forum at Westminster? What will the timescale be for this? There needs to be some clarification, because from the media reports in Wales it is clear that there is considerable uncertainty about this. I personally regard 30 Westminster seats for Wales as ridiculous, particularly if they have to be the same size, but that is an issue for another piece of legislation. None the less, that impinges on what we are debating today, as other noble Lords have mentioned, and I hope that the Minister might be in a position to give some clarification. If he is not, perhaps he could find a vehicle by which we could be informed of the Government’s thinking on this matter.
Lord Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for hers and for the information that she gave to your Lordships. I heard the Minister’s stentorian Scottish brogue as he outlined his Welsh intentions, so I drew the appropriate conclusions.
As the draft SI says, the Boundary Commission for Wales has submitted to the Lord President of the Council, Mr Clegg, reports recommending alterations to the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies into which Wales is divided and of the constituencies of the National Assembly for Wales. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order states baldly that,
“the Assembly constituencies will no longer be the same as the parliamentary constituencies”.
In some respects, it is not an exaggeration to say that in stating that fact in these papers, some history is being made. There is to be a disjoint between the boundaries of the Assembly and of the mother of Parliaments where Wales is concerned. I do not see in the Explanatory Memorandum or in the draft order any explanation as to the intent of the Government with regard to the parliamentary boundaries.
I am not qualified to pronounce upon details concerning Brecon and Radnor, Rhymney, Ogmore, Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil, the vale and Penarth, but I presume that the consultations were scrupulous and that, in terms of these being ward boundaries for the Assembly, things went reasonably well. The order mentions parliamentary boundaries, and although the Minister mentioned them he does not appear to know about the extreme disquiet about the details of the proposed boundaries, which mean that there will be 10 fewer Members of Parliament in Wales. To cut away 10 parliamentary seats from Wales is unjust; Wales’s MPs now are serving their constituents extremely well, and MPs of all parties have never worked so hard, so effectively and so visibly. Their constituents get a fine service, and MPs make their offices and staff readily available throughout Wales to give that excellent service. That service is of more than high quality, and I regret the coalition’s decision to expunge 10 seats. The reasons for this are not given in the draft or the Explanatory Memorandum.
This is a historic blunder, against the grain of public opinion. Are Westminster MPs expected to wither on the vine in the years ahead? Why does the coalition hugely increase, by over 100, the membership of an overcrowded House of Lords when it proposes to cut severely the number of MPs? Ten parliamentary seats are to go in Wales in the coalition’s approach. Even at this late stage, I would hope that Downing Street will decide that it is going too far and will dump such a measure. It seems that we will have more and more Barons and Baronesses and fewer MPs in Wales, but we are not told in the papers before this Committee the reasons why. I do not think that this is the time to denude Wales of its Westminster champions—champions of reform, of the underprivileged and, increasingly, of the unemployed.
There is a birthright here, a parliamentary birthright, and the Government of the day are taking much of it away from the people of Wales. The Government promulgate the merits of what you may call community and yet are hacking away at an established value and historic provision in Wales. So far we have not heard why the Government intend this.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I think it is fair to say that there is very little contention over the detail of the order, and indeed I think that was the response to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales when it produced its preliminary findings. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we are not aware of anyone objecting to these provisions.
Perhaps I may start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones. The reason why there is nothing about the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in Wales in either the order or the Explanatory Memorandum is that that is not what the order is about. It is about boundaries which will be relevant to the Welsh Assembly. I say to the noble Lord that I certainly am aware of the furore that this has caused. It was not for nothing that I dealt with the relevant parts in the amendments both in Committee and on Report when the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill went through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Jones
The Minister is helpful and kindly, notwithstanding his brief, but the draft order contains the words “Representation of the People, Wales” and “Parliamentary Constituencies”. There it is. There is no answer from the Government as to why Wales must suffer this huge penalty. One hopes that one day a Minister who represents the coalition will tell us why.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord’s noble friend Lord Rowlands, the words “Parliamentary Constituencies” appear in the order because they are in the name of the order being amended by this order. However, the detail of the order affects only boundaries for constituencies for the Welsh Assembly and the regions for which additional Members are elected.
I absolutely share the noble Lord’s view; I would hate to see Welsh MPs wither on the vine. As someone who believes in the integrity of our United Kingdom, I hope that for generations to come there will be Members of Parliament from Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord is looking for an explanation, the reason why I am not going to rehearse all the arguments that we had in the Chamber during the Committee and Report stages of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is that in these elections Members will be elected by equal numbers in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. That was the goal of the provisions in the 2011 legislation.
Lord Jones
The noble and learned Lord knows that Scotland has taken a hit but he has not given the reason why Wales should take a hit.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The reason is that, following the proposals by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, the Boundary Commission for Wales, the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland and the Boundary Commission for England, there will roughly be equality, within 5 per cent, in the number of electors per constituency. That does not exist at the moment, and the intention is to achieve that equality so that a vote in Cardiff has the same value as a vote in Coleraine, Edinburgh and Manchester. The intention is to ensure that throughout our United Kingdom votes are of equal value, and nothing in that minimises or detracts from the value of a vote in Wales.
We have been through the arguments and I do not think that we are going to advance much further. I suspect that this argument is going to come around again when the Boundary Commission for Wales publishes its provisional proposals for the Westminster seats. As I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, I was aware of the interview with the First Minister in today’s Western Mail. I think that it was also on WalesOnline. Very early in my remarks in moving the order, I said that the Explanatory Memorandum says, as a matter of legal explanation of what the order is about, that these changes will come into effect for the election to the Assembly in 2016. However, I did say that that was subject to the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Wales to look carefully at the implications of having different boundaries for Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies in Wales.
If the noble Baroness had not done so, I would have quoted the reply that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales gave in the House of Commons back in May, when she gave that commitment seriously to consider the implications. However, I assure noble Lords here today that nothing will be done without full and proper consultation. It would have been improper if, having brought forward the recommendations on these interim changes, we had not moved to implement them. I think that it would have been very presumptuous on our part not to have done so, given that we knew that the Boundary Commission for Wales had the proposals under consideration when we passed the 2011 legislation.
Baroness Gale
Is the Minister saying that there could be changes before 2016? That is the concern in Wales and what the row is about at the moment—that the order is saying that this will happen in 2016. However, the Minister is now saying that there could be changes before 2016. Will he please clarify that for me?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps I could just repeat what the noble Baroness quoted to me: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales said at Oral Questions that she would seriously consider the point that was made. It would be wrong for us to prejudge the outcome of any consultation that could take place, but I assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that no change will be made without proper consultation. The Secretary of State has given a commitment to consider the point that was made to her in exchanges in the Commons, and that consideration is what she is currently doing.
Lord Rowlands
Why, therefore, is no such qualification included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the order? Why is there nothing saying, “Oh yes, but there may now be changes of the kind that the Minister is saying might happen”?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Quite simply because the Explanatory Memorandum is a statement of the effect of the order as the law currently stands, not a statement of policy. I hope that in presenting the order I made it very clear—I think I have repeated it twice now—that that is subject to the commitment that my right honourable friend has made. Just to be clear, the Explanatory Memorandum is a statement of what the effect of the order would be as a matter of law; it is not intended to be a statement of policy. I hope that clarifies the position. The Secretary of State is doing what she said in that exchange that she would do and considering what the effect is of the fact that there are implications of the disjunction.
My noble friend Lady Randerson asked me to confirm that that was the case in Scotland. It is indeed the position that the UK parliamentary constituencies do not match the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. I would be brave to say that the political parties necessarily find it easy but I rather suspect that individual members of the public, who at the end of the day matter most, have little difficulty in identifying their Member of the Scottish Parliament and their Member of the UK Parliament.
Perhaps for clarity, I should say that there is nothing at the moment in law or in any arrangements that would look at how Welsh Assembly constituencies would change. I say purely as a matter of fact that when the disjunction took place in Scotland, primary legislation was brought in in Scotland to make provision for a separate boundary review of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies. Let us not interpret that as in any way a commitment that we are about to bring forward legislation, but that is factually how that position has been addressed in the longer term in Scotland.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. The question that arises is how we ensure a mechanism for setting the constituency boundaries for the Assembly within the context of the rules and values on which they are based, which are more community values, in that there are more individual seats and they are geared to the old communities that they used to represent. At the same time, the boundaries for Westminster are based on the totally different principle—what might be called a republican principle—that it is from the people up that the rights and legitimacy of Parliament come. That is an old established principle; whether it works well in other countries is another question. Those two sets of values and analysis are totally different.
What I am really asking is: are we going to have two boundary commissions to do this or different people in the same commission? Are we going to have more resources to enable us to do it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I cannot answer that question because there is no answer to it at the moment, other than that, having established boundaries, clearly they cannot go on for ever. The very nature of our system is that the boundaries should be regularly updated. We now say that UK boundaries should be done on a regular basis every five years; previously, as I have indicated, it was done every eight to 12 years. It is clear that at some stage some mechanism will need to be put in place to allow an update of the boundaries, but it would be presumptuous and premature of me to speculate now on when that would be, and indeed on whether we will use the same people to do it and what the criteria would be for these boundaries. That is a debate for another day. There are no proposals. However, the noble Lord was right to identify the fact that, as there is a disjunction, there has to be a mechanism at some point for updating the boundaries for the Assembly.
Lord Rowlands
I apologise, but if there are changes of the kind that are being foreshadowed, would they require legislation and where would that legislation take place?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am almost certain that it would require legislation and it would be Westminster legislation, just as with Scotland when as a result of a disjunction there was primary legislation in 2004. I am as certain as I can be that that is what the position would be.
This debate has been useful because it has brought out a number of important issues, and I am sure that there will be further discussions when the Boundary Commission for Wales produces its proposals for the Welsh parliamentary constituencies. I very much valued the historic insight into the boundaries between Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, where the noble Lord served with distinction when he and I were colleagues in the Commons. Since then, people have come and gone over a number of years, and this is perhaps just the latest instalment; I am sure that there will be many in years to come when our successors are sitting here or in the other place—with whatever role this place has in a century’s time. On the basis that in the terms of the order there does not need to be any dispute, I commend the order to the Committee.
Water Supply (Amendment to the Threshold Requirement) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Water Supply (Amendment to the Threshold Requirement) Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, we cannot perhaps expect quite the passion in this debate that we had with the previous statutory instrument, but I do not wish to pour cold water on contributions that noble Lords may make.
The water supply licensing regime introduced by the Water Act 2003 was an attempt to introduce limited retail competition into the water sector. It permits new entrants known as licensed water suppliers to enter the market and enables non- household customers using at least 50 megalitres of water a year to switch from their existing monopoly supplier to an alternative water supplier. To give some idea of scale, an Olympic-sized swimming pool contains approximately 2.5 megalitres of water.
There are currently seven licensed water suppliers that eligible non-household customers can switch to. A licensed water supplier is permitted to purchase water from the incumbent water company and supply those customers who are eligible to switch away from their existing supplier. The size of the non-household market is approximately 1.1 million customers and, of those, an estimated 2,200 are currently eligible to switch their water supplier. However, since the introduction of the WSL regime in 2005 it has become increasingly more apparent that the WSL is not working effectively; only one non-household customer has managed to switch its supplier.
The Independent Review of Competition and Innovation in Water Markets, carried out by Professor Martin Cave and published in 2009, considered that better value for water and sewerage services could be obtained through enabling greater competition. The report identified a number of reasons why the WSL regime had been ineffective and made a number of recommendations for a step-by-step approach towards the introduction of competition. Professor Cave recommended increasing the size of the contestable market as the first step. This would be achieved through a reduction in the threshold at which non-household customers could switch suppliers.
These regulations amend the Water Industry Act 1991 by reducing the customer eligibility threshold from 50 megalitres to five megalitres. This will significantly increase the size of the contestable market from 2,200 to 26,000 non-household customers in the area of those water companies that are wholly or mainly in England. The regulations represent a low-risk way of extending the market without the need for further investment. Further market reform changes as identified by Professor Cave will be considered in the water White Paper, which will be published by December. At this stage, we are expecting that lowering the threshold will stimulate interest in the market, reinvigorate new entrants’ efforts to gain market share and incentivise existing water companies to improve services or risk losing customers. The potential benefits associated with lowering the threshold could take the form of lower bills through keener prices, improved customer service and lower consumption due to increased water efficiency. The regulations will not impose any costs on business and do not have an impact on micro-businesses. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Baroness Parminter
I think it is right that the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Cave report, but it is very disappointing that the impact assessment makes it clear that no guaranteed or quantifiable environmental benefits in terms of reducing water use will result from there regulations. It is all about “could” and “might be”; nothing is guaranteed and there are no quantifiables in that.
The impact assessment also makes it quite clear that, without further reforms to the water supply licensing regime, the uptake on supply switching is going to be very limited. The Minister pointed out that there is a market of 26,000, but the assessment makes it clear that, without further reform, the potential is just two or three companies per annum. It strikes me that this statutory instrument on its own is pretty unimpressive and I wonder why it has been brought forward before the White Paper, given that the White Paper is going to be coming forward fairly shortly. I am sure that some form of further legislative reform will take place following that. I should like to know why these regulations—and the cost of bringing them to this House and into the market—has been brought forward on their own, given its limited potential.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly what the statutory instrument does and to the noble Baroness for making some useful comments, with which I agree, about the impact assessment. This is a perfectly harmless statutory instrument, so I am very content with it. Like the noble Baroness, I am not sure that it is going to have a massive impact but, given that the Cave review recommended that this should happen, that the Cave review did a good job and that we look forward to the Government’s comments in the White Paper, I am certainly happy to give this statutory instrument my blessing.
I would not want to burden anybody with having to work out any more impacts but, especially given that this is a Defra statutory instrument, the rural impact would be particularly interesting. It would be interesting to know whether any thought has been given to including rural impacts in general. When I was reading through the impact assessment, I thought that it might make a difference in some urban areas because in urban areas the market is more likely to be active. In the rural parts, however, if it makes any difference at all or if there is enough of a market operating, I shall be quite surprised. If the Minister has any comments on that, I shall be delighted, but this is a pretty straightforward statutory instrument. We welcome competition in the water industry; we hope that it benefits consumers and that the department and the regulator will make sure that that happens. I am happy to give it a positive nod.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Parminter for pointing out that she felt that the environmental potential of changes in the market had not been properly stated in the impact assessment. Impact assessments are of course designed to report on measurable impacts. One of the difficulties in this case is that we cannot predict the impact of a reform of this nature. I can say that since non-household competition was introduced in Scotland in April 2008, more than 45,000 customers have renegotiated the terms of their supply, enjoying the range of benefits that come from a competitive market.
One element to which I tried to draw the Grand Committee’s attention was that among the services that can be offered to companies in this category is advice on reducing water consumption. It is not very easy to quantify and you cannot rely on it in an impact assessment. However, I should have thought that it would be one of the strongest reasons why some companies would look to change supplier. The reason will probably not be price. In some ways it is more difficult to compete on price in water than it is in almost any other area. However, there could well be competition on service. Water efficiency is a big gain from a freer market.
The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that we need a White Paper and that this is only a beginning. I cannot pretend that it is only the beginning of a reshaping of the water market in the UK along the lines of the review that Professor Cave produced. However, we are right to introduce this statutory instrument at this stage. I hope that we will learn from the way that the market improves through this statutory instrument things that we can then include in the legislation that will follow the White Paper.
It is difficult to quantify the impact on rural areas. The impact assessment does not have a special chapter just because it comes from Defra. We might consider that. It is something of which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, might try to persuade us. If the process allowed us to flag up our own special interests, it would be very good to do so. There are one or two large consumers of water in rural areas who might well benefit from this proposal. There could then be an assessment of the impact on rural areas and rural businesses; I should like to think so.
I thank my noble friends. I think we have pointed out areas that we will probably debate in greater detail and with, I have little doubt, somewhat more vigour when we come to consider other aspects. Meanwhile, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, climate change is one of the defining challenges of our generation. At a time when we are trying to reduce our energy consumption but still need to heat our homes, renewable energy must and will play a part in managing this situation. This is why we want to introduce the renewable heat incentive, or RHI, to support renewable heat generation and to complement the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes which support the generation of renewable electricity.
Previous draft regulations for the renewable heat incentive were debated by both Houses. While both Houses passed those regulations at the time, they were subject to state aid approval being received from the European Commission for the scheme. In the event, the European Commission decided to approve the scheme, on the condition that the tariff for large biomass installations was reduced. The reason the Commission was concerned with the large-scale biomass tariff was because the tariff-setting methodology used for it differed from that applied to other technology bands. The Commission believed that this could result in overcompensation for some biomass installations.
The proposed large biomass tariff was set to incentivise 100 per cent of potential large biomass installations, allowing us to maximise the level of biomass take-up at this scale. This approach differed from that taken to other technologies supported under the scheme. We had decided on this approach because large-scale biomass represents the most cost-effective way of meeting our EU renewables targets. As the tariff levels were set out in the previously debated regulations, we have revised the draft regulations to include the new tariff level for large-scale biomass.
The new set of draft regulations is available to your Lordships today and sets out the details for the renewable heat incentive under which this scheme will operate. There are two changes to those previously debated in the Committee on 12 July. The tariff for large biomass installations—those of over 1 megawatt capacity—has been reduced from 2.7p per kilowatt hour to 1p per kilowatt hour, and the dates on which Ofgem is required to first report to the department on the administration of the scheme have been altered to reflect the delay in launching the scheme.
These regulations provide the basis for 20 years of financial support for a range of renewable heat technologies such as solar thermal, biomass boilers and ground source heat pumps. Support levels are intended to bridge the financial gap between the cost of conventional and renewable heat systems. Once in the scheme, the level of support for participants will be fixed and will change each year only with inflation. The Government have committed £864 million in funding for the scheme up to the end of 2014-15. This funding will come from general taxation rather than the proposed levy suggested by the previous Government, which was found to be unworkable. Support under these regulations will be available for renewable heat installations in England, Wales and Scotland. The Northern Ireland Executive, who are developing their own scheme under powers provided by the Energy Act 2011, have consulted on their proposals and are now analysing responses to that consultation.
The RHI will provide the right framework to enable a rapid transformation of the way heat is generated. We expect it to provide carbon savings between now and 2020 of 44 million tonnes—equivalent to all the carbon emitted by 19 typical new gas power stations operating at full load in one year. The RHI will be available to generators of renewable heat in the industrial, commercial, public, not-for-profit and community sectors in the first instance. We want to incentivise a wide range of businesses and organisations to realise the opportunity provided by the RHI and start generating heat from renewable sources.
The domestic sector is currently being supported by the renewable heat premium payment scheme, which provides a one-off payment to households that have installed an eligible renewable heat plant. We are working on proposals for an ongoing domestic scheme as part of phase 2 of that scheme. However, in the light of the later than expected launch of phase 1 as a result of the changes required by the European Commission, we are reviewing the timetable for the introduction of phase 2. We will be in a position to confirm the exact timing early in the new year.
The RHI will be delivered by Ofgem on behalf of DECC. I am pleased to confirm that the delay to the scheme has not impacted on its readiness to administer the RHI and, subject to parliamentary approval, it will be in a position to start accepting applications once these regulations have been approved and made. Ofgem has significant experience in delivering financial support schemes to renewable energy generators, and already delivers the renewables obligation and feed-in-tariff. Because Ofgem has experience in delivering similar schemes, it will be able to build on this experience and existing structures such as IT systems to ensure that the RHI operates as effectively as possible. Generators will need to apply to Ofgem to be accredited under the scheme, and the processes that they need to undertake are set out in guidance recently published on the Ofgem website.
In order to be able to participate in the scheme, applicants will need to meet a range of eligibility criteria intended to ensure the integrity of the scheme. This includes the requirement that, for small and medium plants, installers and equipment need to be certified under the microgeneration certification scheme or an equivalent scheme. Generators will also need to commit to undertake certain ongoing obligations to receive payments under the scheme—for example, providing meter readings so Ofgem can calculate their quarterly RHI payments, maintain their equipment and, in the case of biomass installations, provide information on a number of sustainability issues.
It is worth spending a little time considering bioenergy, which is a key element in allowing us to achieve our renewable energy targets. The amendments to Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008 that were approved in the summer went some way towards achieving this by enabling biogas to play a much more significant role in the RHI. We are still aware of the concerns surrounding the increased use of biomass as an energy source, particularly with regard to sustainability of the fuel sourced and air quality. Those concerns are addressed in the regulations by including sustainability reporting criteria from the outset. Air quality will be addressed through existing legislation for large-scale biomass, and we will introduce emission limits for all other biomass installations in phase 2 of the scheme.
Rising energy prices, an increased dependence on imported energy and the impact of climate change all mean that we need to change how we use and generate energy. Energy used to generate heat is a key aspect of this, as heat energy contributes half of the UK's carbon emissions. We are also no longer able to rely on cheap fossil fuel gas, which historically has supplied 70 per cent of our heat. It is time to address this situation. By introducing the RHI we are taking a first step towards a radically new approach to how we generate heat in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the noble Baroness for her exposition and welcome her to her new role in the department. I apologise to the committee for my cold, and hope and trust that my splutterings will not make some of my remarks incoherent.
The Minister is correct that this is essentially a replay of the regulations debated in July, with two key alterations. While we will get to these in a moment, I also think it worth while to state at the outset that the Opposition continue in our broad support for the renewable heat incentive, continuing as it does the groundbreaking nature of the scheme set up in the previous Labour Administration. However, there have been delays of over a year, a dissipation of momentum and a reduction in ambition, with the two-tier introduction for businesses and households and changes to the technologies and tariffs eligible under the scheme. While adjustments must be made as there is a certain amount of learning on the job with such a new scheme, it is nevertheless important to provide continuity and schemes if investor confidence is to be maintained—a point sadly lacking regarding solar power and the feed-in tariff scheme, whereby the rate of return was cut from 12 per cent to 6 per cent at a stroke.
On that point, I shall ask the Minister the first of my queries today. Of the two changes made to the July regulations, the first involves a reduction in the tariff for large-scale biomass installations of more than 1 megawatt from 2.7 pence per kilowatt hour to 1.1 pence per kilowatt hour. This is a huge reduction, made in response to the European Commission, which judged that the tariff was too high and might lead to overcompensation for some installations in the technology band which would threaten the EU internal market level playing field. The Minister in the other place stated that this came as a considerable surprise to the department’s officials—as a bolt from the blue. Given that the subsidy has as one of its three main aims the payment of a rate of return of upfront investment of 12 per cent, where does that leave the return on a large biomass? Surely it is no longer 12 per cent. Is that 12 per cent return a level playing field across Europe, except of course solar, as stated earlier? How could the department have got it so wrong? Given that the department is in constant contact with stakeholders, can the Minister give the Committee an assessment from those conversations of the impact of this change? What effect will this have on our renewable targets?
That last question leads to some general remarks to which I hope that the Minister may be able to respond. At present, I understand that the current level of renewable heat is at 1.5 per cent; this instrument aims to increase it to 12 per cent by 2020. This is, indeed, some dramatic increase, more than has been experienced elsewhere in Europe. It demands leadership and commitment from the Government, not meddling and tinkering. Can the Minister confirm that the target will be met and that budgetary constraints do not overrule the 12 per cent rate of return policy?
In annex 1 to the memorandum, the department laid out the post-implementation review plan, which is scheduled to start in January 2014. The annex lists seven criteria to which the review will have regard when considering changes. My honourable colleague, Luciana Berger, MP for Liverpool, Wavertree, asked yesterday what criteria would trigger an early review. Is it satisfactory that the Minister in the other place responded that the answer would be provided in phase 2? Surely that needs to be stated with certainty upfront to investors if they are to have confidence that schemes will not be changed out of the blue. When affordability within the Government’s overall deficit reduction plans is stated in the annex as one of the criteria to which a review must have regard, is it not that the scheme will be under constant review? Could there be an addition of a further two criteria to this list—that the Government will have regard to, first, the employment impact and effect on growth of the industry impacted by any changes and, secondly, the effect on investors’ confidence when considering any changes brought about in consideration of other criteria? Does the Minister agree that good governance requires consistency of approach and responsible lead-in times to scheme changes?
The renewables sector is being challenged ever more critically in these times to have regard to value-for-money concerns, environmental impacts, sustainability, carbon emissions and so on. For example, there is no precondition that buildings or equipment be made energy-efficient first. Given that the Energy Bill has been enacted, could the Minister give the Committee any information on whether the review will be informed on the implementation from energy efficiency measures and what outcomes could be achieved?
It is applauded that the funding for this renewable heat-incentive scheme is to come through general taxation, which avoids the impact on consumers through increased prices, generally has regressive impacts on fuel policy and creates a better balance between energy use, climate change targets and emission reduction targets. It complements the commitment to promote the huge increase in the amount of energy that could be produced from food waste through anaerobic digestion. If this is to be the case regarding renewable heat, why could the same funding approach not also apply to feed-in tariffs, which were drastically curtailed because of the contribution that it required from consumers? Would general taxation not better match the big ambitions for the green sector?
While the concerns that I have outlined show that we wish to see improvements and an increase in momentum, I agree to the approval of the regulations.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, as a proud owner of two wood-burning stoves, what could I do but welcome this piece of administration to the legislation? I was going to congratulate the previous Government on having introduced this but of course it was neither them nor the present Government who did so; it was a rather anarchic band of Back-Benchers in both Houses who insisted that this was one of the ways forward. It was one of the few occasions on which Parliament overcame Government when feed-in tariffs and the renewable heat initiative came about. Maybe we all ought to pat our own backs when we look back at history, but the question here is what will happen in the future.
As we have been reminded, we have a big target here—to move from 1.5 per cent of renewable energy through heat to 12 per cent and, ultimately, to the 15 per cent target. We concentrate a lot on electricity generation and not so much on this other half of the sector. I welcome the fact that this will be paid for by general taxation. That £865 million is a big victory for DECC regarding the Treasury. Maybe we are not meant to talk about arguments between friends, but that seems to have been a good negotiation in these times of economic and budgetary stringency. That means that where we have fuel poverty, particularly around heat—that is not helped by electricity generation for heat—then the majority of people not getting their heat from electricity means that we are not adding to those bills.
The other exciting thing about this, although this is also why it is dangerous, is that this is something new and different and has not really been tried before. We have seen feed-in tariffs elsewhere in Europe and have, I hope, learnt from that experience. Here we are going to create the learning curve ourselves—we are the guinea pigs. That has dangers in its own right. We have to ensure that we do not have unexpected short-term tariff changes because we find it difficult to predict how these installations are going to take place, what the demand is and how much of that money is going to be used. That will be difficult but it is important that we get it right regarding investor incentives, particularly in the corporates and the small business sector that we are talking about.
I was interested in what the impact assessment said about perverse incentives. I can see the problem where the tariff rate is greater than the marginal cost of producing electricity. I went through all those arguments in the impact assessment, and would be interested to be clear that the Government are now certain that we will not be burning heat just for the incentives and that we have got around that problem. Perverse incentives are important in all legislation.
I very much regret that the European Commission got involved in terms of state aid. I would have thought that that was inappropriate in this sector, and I am with the Government in being surprised that the Commission made that intervention. One of the problems with that has been that, as so often in these cases, where there is subsidy of any kind, the industry stops while we wait for these schemes to start. There have already been a number of casualties in the heat pump industry and in this sector because people hold off from making investments until the subsidies are available.
We are now moving ahead on the business and industrial side, and I welcome that, but I should be very interested to hear when the Minister expects the domestic side of this to come in. I may have missed it in her opening remarks but I did not catch a specific date. It is very important for the industry, for social housing and for this other area where investment is taking place that that moves forward rather than people holding off until the renewable heat initiative comes into being.
I am very pleased to see these regulations come before us. This is an exciting scheme. There are all sorts of challenges surrounding it but let us go ahead and reach for that 12 per cent and beyond.
Baroness Worthington
I, too, am very pleased to be here. I am sorry that I missed the debate earlier in the year, as I was still on maternity leave. I want to open with some general remarks. It was possibly more than 10 years ago, while I was working at Friends of the Earth, that the suggestion of an incentive for renewable heat was first put forward by the NGOs. Part of the motivation for that was that it is much more efficient to take biomass energy and convert it directly into heat. If you use it to generate electricity, about two-thirds of the energy goes up cooling towers. Therefore, it is very welcome, if a little late, that this initiative is now being introduced.
I shall try to keep my comments brief as I do not want to delay approval of the regulations any further. It is very important that the initiative starts as quickly as possible. I echo the noble Lord’s comments about the need for clarity at the domestic level of the scheme. I hope that there will be great interest in the scheme from house owners, because we are all faced with high energy prices as a result of higher oil and gas prices. Therefore, I think that the update will be good and I hope that we will have clarity over the date of introduction.
One consequence of the delay is that the Government are now introducing this instrument in the eye of the storm around the solar FITs debate. I hope that we will take some lessons from that debate. Perhaps most pressing is that, if reviews are undertaken, a minimum notice period should be given to the industry before such changes are introduced. Six weeks’ notice is simply not acceptable for an industry that has to plan for the longer term. We expect there to be reviews of this instrument but the industry must be given fair notice of the changes, and I ask whether that is being considered.
I also echo my noble friend’s comments about the principle of how this is being paid for. It is significant that it is coming out of general taxation. I think that that helps to avoid the kind of furore that we are seeing over consumer bills. Let us be honest about the fact that general taxation is currently being boosted by various revenues from the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Therefore, this money is being generated from the climate change initiative and is being recycled on other work to further our aims on climate change. That is a very good principle and I should like to see more such measures being brought out of general taxation, given that we now have this big input of money from the ETS auctions.
Finally, I hope that this initiative will be very successful. I hope that we will have sufficient flexibility so as not to be hidebound by our modelling. All modelling is vulnerable—it is very hard to predict the future—but if this should turn out to be a very successful initiative and we end up getting through the budget more quickly, let us not pull the rug out from under an industry that is successful but look to spend more. We should have flexibility in how we reach our ultimate goals, which is to achieve 20 per cent of all energy from renewable sources. If renewable heat turns out to be a great success, let us have the flexibility to keep backing winners and not keep pulling the rug out from under an industry that starts to produce good results.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of this measure, which takes up many pages, and congratulate her on taking up the cudgels for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I have a mild interest since I have a farm, where there is obviously scope for generating various kinds of renewable energy. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that the plan was to reduce the periodic support payments for large biomass operations, which reminded me of something that I saw recently on a BBC web page. Perhaps the Minister can write to me if she does not have a ready answer for this. The Scottish Government have devolved powers for renewable energy, and seem to be holding a consultation on reducing the ROCs on large biomass generation because they want to devote them to marine energy. However, does large-scale biomass qualify for ROCs as well as periodic support payments? What power do the Scottish Executive have over renewables obligation certificates? Can they allocate them up and down at their own will, or is the allocation of ROCs still a UK power?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. Quite a few issues have been raised and I will do my best to cover most of them in as much detail as is sensible on such a complex matter. I welcome not only everybody’s contributions today but the support that this initiative has received from the Opposition and my noble friends in all parts of the Committee. As someone who is new to this brief, it was interesting for me to learn that the scheme was first mooted by NGOs 10 years ago and that the Back Benches, rather than previous Governments, were behind this move, although it obviously now benefits from the decision of this Government.
I will go through the issues that were raised, some of them by several noble Lords. A number of noble Lords sought to draw comparisons between this scheme and the feed-in tariffs scheme for solar panels. I understand why some people might be concerned that issues will arise from this scheme similar to those which arose from the feed-in tariff scheme. The key thing is that this Government are learning lessons from how the feed-in tariff scheme was set up by the previous Government. There has been a much higher level of collaboration with the industry and stakeholders in setting up this scheme. We have tried to build in the flexibility that is not there in the feed-in tariff scheme. I point out, as I did in the Chamber earlier today, that the changes that we are making to the feed-in tariff scheme are to ensure that the industry is sustainable in the future. It is an important industry and we want it to be part of the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, raised the issue of why the RHI is being funded by general taxation, whereas the feed-in tariff scheme is funded by a subsidy, or a levy on consumer bills. The difference is that feed-in tariffs are paid to consumers by electricity suppliers. That is, there is a tariff for the energy that is generated by people through the solar panels on their roofs. To fund feed-in tariffs from general taxation would require the scheme to be restructured or the Government having to pass money to the electricity suppliers to pay to the solar panel participants. It is a different scheme altogether; that is the main reason why it is funded differently.
Baroness Worthington
Could I ask specifically about the notice period, which has been such an issue with the solar feed-in tariffs? The Minister mentioned it but I am seeking an assurance that any changes are not introduced with too short a time period for the industry. A minimum of three to four months is necessary for the industry to adjust its order books and supply chain. Can the Minister assure me that there will not be changes posted that will be enacted within six weeks? That is a significant issue for investor confidence.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. However, the way in which we have constructed the scheme means that I would not expect the sort of change that we have experienced with the feed-in tariffs for solar PVs to be repeated in this context. We would ensure, through our mechanisms for cost control within the department, that we are monitoring progress very transparently and that we would avoid that kind of emergency change that she refers to. It is unnecessary to give a specific commitment on a timetable as such because of what I have said, but I absolutely understand and appreciate her point.
Turning to the points raised by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose about large-scale biomass, the renewables obligation certificates and RHI, it is possible for new projects to receive the renewables obligation for the electricity generated in a CHP plant and the RHI for heat generated by that plant. A plant cannot claim the higher awards for CHP under the RO and the RHI. Does that make sense to my noble friend? I am glad if it does. My noble friend also asked whether the Scottish Government could award ROCs. The decisions regarding the details of renewables obligations, including the setting of banding levels, are for the Scottish Government. A separate consultation on their support of renewables obligation certificates was published on 21 October.
Lord Grantchester
Perhaps I might detain the Committee for one extra moment. Could the noble Baroness consider the question of affordability? While understanding the situation that we are in—especially in the wider European context at the moment—nevertheless, I am concerned that affordability is put up as a criterion that may overrule all other aspects. Could she comment on the relative importance of affordability and say whether her department is moving in any way at all to pick winners and losers? Winners such as PV might provide more affordable success stories than other technologies that might, in terms of their overall rate of return, be worthy of being equally treated. Nevertheless, because of the extra costs involved in their technologies, they are unlikely to be as affordable as others. Can she comment more widely on the affordability criteria in the memorandum?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
One thing that I would like to make clearer—and remind the Committee about, as well as the noble Lord—is that the department and the Government have three clear strategic aims in this area. One is to ensure we have security of supply so that we keep the lights on. The next is to make sure that we play our part in safeguarding the future of the planet for future generations. The third is to make sure that we do both of those things in the most cost-effective way possible. By that, we want to make sure that, in all the things we are trying to do, we do them in a way that is at the lowest possible cost to those who pay. Obviously, people who pay are having to do so either through their bills or through public money via taxation. Affordability, therefore, is a key issue for us.
I cannot comment specifically on each emerging technology, but obviously there will be a situation where some things are more successful, some more attractive and some more likely to be taken up than others. These incentives are there to help industry get something off the ground which is very powerful in meeting those objectives. I hope, at some point, that they will not need incentives at all but will work in their own right.
In conclusion, the RHI is a departure from our conventional approach to generating heat. This is a new market for the UK and our introduction of long-term financial support for heat generators under the RHI, alongside existing renewable financial incentive schemes, the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariffs, sends a strong signal to the renewables sector that the Government are committed to supporting renewable energy in this country. I hope we can all agree that this is a sector that should be supported. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy: Tidal Generation
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to exploit further the United Kingdom’s natural resources of tidal power.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, it is important that we exploit our tidal resources to provide energy security, carbon reduction and economic growth. However, it must be done in a manner that constitutes value for money. The Government do not see a strategic economic case for public investment in a tidal barrage in the Severn at the present time, given its very large costs. Instead, our focus is on developing tidal stream and wave technologies. The UK is already a global leader in this emerging sector.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
I hope I am allowed to say that I found that a very helpful Answer. Will my noble friend suggest to the Department of Energy that it should create something like a United Kingdom tidal energy enterprise that will manage the growth of tidal power? We have been slow to start and there are now a great many players in the field. Does she agree that it is essential to see that all the eventual profit goes not into the pockets of the large electricity companies but into ensuring that there is cheap, available electricity that will save costs for thousands of homes?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of our tides and the opportunity that they provide in supplying renewable energy. I will of course take back his specific proposal to the department. Perhaps it is worth adding to my previous Answer. The department has not ruled out completely the possibility of a Severn barrage and will consider privately funded projects on their merits. Indeed, the department is currently reviewing a business case from a private consortium.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I have another proposal for the Minister. The coasts of Britain have enormous potential to provide this reliable energy permanently. Will she give consideration to restoring the tide mill at Newhaven in Sussex which, under the Duke of Newcastle in the 19th century, was the largest mill in the country? It could be an educational example of how this power works.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I thank the noble Baroness for that recommendation. I am not familiar with the mill. The department is concentrating its efforts on new technologies associated with tidal stream and wave energy. Certainly in that area much is happening in the industry to progress the innovation that is happening already in this country—we are a global leader. I will consult the department on the idea that the noble Baroness put forward and come back to her as soon as I can.
Lord Walpole
My Lords, will the Minister comment on what is happening at Scapa Flow in Orkney? Things were definitely looking rather exciting about two years ago. Is there any progress?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am not sure that that helps me very much. Certainly there is a lot happening in Orkney as part of the tidal stream and new technology. The example that the noble Lord has identified may be part of the new innovation that is taking place right there, but I am afraid that I do not have any specific details on that.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, the Government have a very modest target of 300 megawatts of capacity of tidal and wave power by 2020, but how are they going to make sure that there is a balance between the environmental effects of this tidal stream and the renewable energy targets? How are the Government making sure that we sing from the same hymn sheet with the Marine Management Organisation, particularly with the allocation of marine conservation zones? How are we going to stop that conflict and still meet the targets?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As part of the UK marine energy programme, the department is working with the Marine Management Organisation and Marine Scotland to establish a working group to consider the approach to planning and consenting for wave and tidal energy. I hope that that will address the concerns that my noble friend has raised.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the Minister has been very helpful and thorough in her answers to questions today. One of the things that she said at the beginning is that there will be no public investment in tidal power. If we are to exploit this natural resource, private investors will need to have confidence in the Government’s commitment to renewables. Today in Westminster, hundreds of people, including investors, are lobbying and campaigning against the Government’s changes to feed-in tariffs on solar power which will decimate the solar industry. What action does the Minister think that the Government can now take to reassure investors that they are committed to renewable energy? Unless urgent action is taken, the Government will have failed in their promise to be the greenest Government ever.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
This Government are absolutely committed to being the greenest Government ever. On the solar feed-in tariffs that the noble Baroness mentioned, the changes that the Government introduced are precisely to ensure that that industry is sustainable and exists into the future. As to tidal stream and what the department is doing to work with the industry, it has put forward innovation funding of £20 million and it is working closely through the UK marine energy programme, which is chaired by the Minister, Greg Barker, and includes representatives of the technology developers, the utilities, the large industrial organisations and financiers. The Government are committed to supporting this new and emerging industry.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, would it not be fairer for the consumers of electricity in this country if the costs of these schemes, including the solar power and tidal schemes, were clearly put on their bills so that people would know how much extra they were paying for them? They are subsidised by the consumers. Therefore, this is a subsidy for wealthy people from poor people who are struggling to pay for their energy costs.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I share my noble friend’s concerns about people subsidising others in the way that he has described. If the Government did nothing on the feed-in tariffs for solar power panels, the equivalent of around £9.50 would be added to the average domestic bill. By introducing the changes that we are proposing, that would be reduced by 2014 to around £2.50 or £3. As to his specific proposal of identifying these costs on bills, I will certainly explore that idea with noble friends at the Ministry.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
There have been complaints from the industries affected by the Government's change of policy on solar power. How can this reassure private investors in tidal and wave power when the Government appear not to listen to the industry, having made commitments?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
This Government are learning from the previous Government’s initiatives by making sure that what we introduce in terms of new subsidies will avoid the need to change the arrangements at a later date and will therefore provide the certainty that the industry looks for.
Climate Change: Durban Conference
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the Government remain committed to keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, at Durban, the Government’s priority is to make further progress towards an ambitious, legally binding agreement for all countries to reduce emissions. To ensure a truly global approach in these negotiations, we have been working closely with other developed and developing countries within the EU, the UNFCCC and other fora.
Lord Judd
Is it not essential that at this critical juncture we do not lose momentum? If we are to sustain momentum, is it not also essential that the agenda, not just the matters being discussed, reflects the perceptions and needs of the developing countries, and that without that shared ownership we will be in difficulties making progress? Is the green climate fund not critical to all this? How soon can we expect to see it operational with women and the poorest central to its concerns?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I refer to the letter by the Secretary of State in today’s Guardian because he clearly spells out the Government’s aim at Durban this year. He said:
“The UK would like to see a global treaty signed straight away but the reality is that some of the biggest economies, both developed and developing, are not yet ready. We aim at Durban to reach agreement on the need for a new treaty and to set out a timetable for its negotiation, concluding no later than 2015”.
Developing countries are essential to hitting that target and many of those countries are affected by climate change. In the negotiating process, the relationship between rich and poor countries has sometimes been out of kilter and there has been an imbalance, which is why the Government have taken two specific actions to address this. First, the advocacy fund, which was launched by Andrew Mitchell in September, provides support and training to negotiators from those countries. Secondly, the UK is very active in the Cartagena dialogue.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in the absence of an agreement at Durban of the kind that she described, Her Majesty's Government will suspend all their unilateral decarbonisation targets post-2020, which damage our competitiveness and threaten our economic recovery to no conceivable purpose?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
It is a great privilege to be asked a question by my noble friend. I would like one day to be able to provide an answer that will not disappoint him, but I think that on this occasion I will have to. The Government are very committed to achieving the targets that I have already outlined and want to show leadership in this area. The Government are not signing up immediately to Kyoto 2 and want to make sure that before they commit to that, all countries are signed up to and agree to the need for the 2-degree target.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, the Minister may well be aware that I have tried to convince this Government that the negotiations for Kyoto 2 will not be completed at the end of Kyoto 1 in 2012. In those circumstances, is she prepared to support the European principle of “stop the clock” when negotiations have failed to meet the timetable and not join with the rich countries, as was almost suggested by the previous speaker, which want to destroy Kyoto, which is not acceptable?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is far more experienced in negotiating climate treaties than I am. On his specific question, I have to limit my answer to restating the fact that there are two separate things going on here: Kyoto 2 and a globally binding treaty by 2015. The Government are absolutely committed to the latter. We would be willing to sign up to the former but will not do that until everybody agrees that they will sign up to that 2-degree climate change.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, almost certainly there will not be a comprehensive agreement at Durban. That comes as a surprise to no one. However, there was good progress by the RED initiative around stopping deforestation, particularly in underdeveloped countries. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the UK Government will particularly press for an agreement on the RED initiative so that we can stop this major source of emissions and the loss of forest worldwide?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am sure that the Government are working on that, and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. If there is anything specific that I can offer further to my answers today, I will obviously provide it to him.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, although the UN process remains blocked by the lack of US participation, will the Minister tell us more about the Clean Energy Ministerial meeting to be held in London next year? Energy Ministers from around the world will be gathering here, and they could potentially sign up to a deal that agrees to reduce the carbon intensity of our energy as soon as possible. This would be a very clear step forward while the UN process remains bogged down by the lack of US participation.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am amazed at the expertise that is coming at me today from different parts of the Chamber. The noble Baroness knows far more about the detail of these issues than I do. On the conference next year that she refers to, our objective is to complete concrete outcomes that demonstrate progress and enhance global low-carbon energy technology development internationally.
EU: Integration
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they continue to support European integration.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has described the present situation as,
“an opportunity to begin to refashion the EU so it better serves this nation’s interests”.
We want to see a European Union, in his words,
“with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc”.
The future shape of the EU might well involve more integration in some areas and between some countries, and less in others. Of course, the Government have also made it clear that they wish to see no treaty changes that transfer power or competencies from the UK to the EU in this Parliament.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, the British people have seen through the fiction that the European Union guarantees peace and safeguards jobs. So I have to press the Government: what is it really for? Put slightly differently, I suppose we can all agree that other international bodies such as the United Nations or NATO have an identifiable purpose, but can the Government tell us why we need the European Union at all, not to mention its very own disastrous euro?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think the British people have a sensible and balanced appreciation of the virtues of living in the European continental area: that it is a mighty single market; that our influence in it is useful; and that when it comes to trade bargaining with the rising powers of Asia, Latin America and Africa, it is very useful to have a bit of muscle. That is a perfectly sensible and common-sense view that, I suspect, prevails in the minds of most of the British people. They may not like some of the aspects of the EU—many of us find these things irritating—but on the whole it seems a reasonable grouping in which to be deeply and actively involved, and that is where we stand.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that the only alternative to the word “integration” used in the Question is disintegration or stagnation, and that our future lies in an integrated Europe—within the confines of some of the qualifications that he made—and that any question of encouraging disintegration would be wrong?
Lord Howell of Guildford
To avoid the debate getting too polarised, of course, there are degrees of integration. In this decentralised age, compared with the 20th century, where centralisation and central state dominance were the fashion, people are looking for more flexibility and decentralisation in all sensibly run organisations, including the EU. There may be some areas, as I indicated in my opening Answer, where a degree of integration is more sensible as an alternative to chaos. However, there may be many other areas where the time has come for decentralisation and a returning of powers closer to the people.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, how would the Minister define a European Union that is more of a network than a bloc?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is asking for an answer that would take longer than the patience of the House of Lords could tolerate. The simple answer is that a bloc tends to be a congealed and sometimes compelled form of integration under tight central control, while a network is a much more modern, less fragile and less rigid structure in which exchanges of views and dialogues in addressing new issues can constantly be adjusted in the light of changing circumstances.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, do not the ambitions set out by the Minister depend essentially on the concurrence of our partners? What expectation does he have that that will be forthcoming? Is it not a fact that as a result of the economic and financial crisis, there will be strong pressures for more integration in certain sectors? We as a Government and as a country have a choice, either arrogantly to rail against them from outside, or to be part of them and seek to bow them in a way that we want, including on principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Some of those aspects are correct, but the noble Lord overemphasises the polarity and the rigidity of the choice. There is no doubt that one of the propositions that is current throughout the eurozone is that the only way forward is towards fiscal union. Indeed, if that is a way of avoiding total chaos in the European markets, it is in our interest, too, that the process should be non-chaotic. That is perfectly clear. However, in other areas, as I said earlier, some degree of decentralisation and flexibility might play a much more useful part in making the European Union fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Would it help my noble friend, in answer to the question of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, if the networked Europe that he talked about was a flexible EU of variable geometry, in which those that want to join the eurozone can do so, and those that want to deepen the single market for a more competitive open trading system to the benefit of all our citizens can also participate in the decision-making? Should that not be the way forward, not fretting about variable speeds and referendums?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not know about my noble friend’s remarks on referenda. There is a case for them on certain occasions, as the Government have made clear. However, the broader issue she described is not very different from what we had in the past. This nation and several others are not members of the eurozone; others are. There is absolutely no reason why we should not co-operate very closely with those who are in or out of the zone in what is in effect a multi-speed Europe, as long as we recognise that we work together in a co-operative pattern within the Union to address constructively the very dangerous challenges from the outside world.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are dangers with a two-speed Europe, and that if a inner eurozone were to be created, it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to be present at all discussions that took place within that eurozone, even if we were not at the table?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Again, I do not necessarily believe that it would be a sort of inner and outer pattern or that the inner zone would necessarily move at a faster speed than the outer. After all, as someone pointed out to me, if you want to get around Paris you go on the Périphérique and not through the middle. So it may not be quite like that, but obviously we want to be closely involved in the evolution of the European Union and its refashioning, to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and we certainly will be. One of the things we should discuss together, not just bilaterally between London and Brussels but in the interests of the whole Union, is a more balanced approach as to the powers and competences between the nation states and essential EU authorities. That, I gather, is also the policy of the Labour Party.
NHS: Waiting Times
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients currently waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment will benefit from the recent directive on waiting times; and what are the most common conditions from which they suffer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we have introduced a strong performance measure in 2012-13 for patients still waiting to start treatment more than 18 weeks after referral. This, and the requirement to treat patients in order of clinical priority, will ensure that the NHS focuses on minimising waiting times for all patients. At the end of September 2011, 242,540 patients were waiting longer than 18 weeks to start treatment. The largest numbers of patients were waiting in trauma and orthopaedics specialties.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, does not this U-turn underline the folly of abandoning targets in the first place? Will the Minister say how, under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to intervene in similar circumstances should they arise in future?
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is not a U-turn. The Government have always been clear that the standards laid down in the NHS constitution should be adhered to. As the noble Lord will know, that includes the expectation that patients should not wait for longer than 18 weeks. It is also a condition built into the NHS standard contract. We have been absolutely consistent all the way along. Those things will continue to have to be measured after the Government’s modernisation proposals are put in place.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
What percentage of patients in hospital are currently awaiting discharge because of delays in establishing a suitable care and follow-up package for them at home, thereby preventing the admission of others for investigation and treatment?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in the first quarter of the current financial year, 0.4 per cent of occupied bed days were taken by patients who were delayed while waiting for a care package. That picture has deteriorated over the past year but that deterioration masks some variations. Some hospitals have improved dramatically and others have started reporting for the first time. It is not possible to compare this year’s figures with the previous year, although these are very important figures which we do monitor.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, is it not strange that the figures show that certain hospitals consistently get nowhere near meeting the 18-week target? What action are the Government going to take to help those hospitals ensure that they perform like the average?
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is right. Five hospitals account for a very significant proportion of the number of patients waiting for longer than 18 weeks. We are working with those hospitals to look at ways in which that performance can be improved. We know that it can be because many hospitals are more than achieving the desired standard.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
Perhaps we may hear from one noble Lord from the other side at a time, and then from my noble friend.
Lord Warner
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Blessed is the sinner who repents. However, will the Minister tell us whether in the light of this repentance, he will, following my noble friend Lord Beecham’s Question, look sympathetically at amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill which will give patients the kind of safeguards that targets did under the previous Government?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we believe that the safeguards are already in place, but the figure I cited in my original Answer is very similar to the figure we have seen over the past two and a half years. Little progress has been made over that time. We do not think that that is satisfactory, so we are broadening the operational standard to ensure that more patients are treated in a timely way. I am sure all noble Lords would wish to see that.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, approaching 250,000 patients have been waiting for more than 18 weeks and I expect that they would like to know why, as would the House. Can the Minister give us any indication, apart from the five hospitals mentioned earlier, of whether there is a regional pattern to this—while we still have regions—or of whether it is the result of financial pressures, clinical management issues or maybe a combination of all three?
Earl Howe
It does seem to be a combination of all three, although it is clear that in certain areas there is a shortage of the necessary specialist consultants. Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, is addressing this urgently with the British Orthopaedic Association in particular. That is expected to result in a solutions paper being put to the NHS Operations Executive in the new year.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, this weekend the Royal College of Nursing reported that around 50,000 nursing posts are either in jeopardy or lost completely due to the ill conceived implementation of the economies being driven through the NHS. Does the noble Earl accept this figure and what effect does he think that figure might have on waiting times and waiting lists? Is it not time for the Government to accept that cuts to front-line staff are going to have an effect on patient care?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in that press release, which I think was from the Royal College of Nursing, there was a blurring of the distinction between the number of nursing posts which have been lost and the number which might, if certain things happen in the future, be lost. We recognise that in some cases local organisations will have to make difficult choices about staffing changes in the coming years. In making any changes, we have been clear that we expect them to ensure that the quality and safety of care is maintained or improved. That may involve changing the skill mix of the workforce in a particular hospital but, if that happens, it has to be safety and quality assured so that there is no adverse effect on patients.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:17 - Division on Amendment 98 - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 98 disagreed.
18:00 - Division on Amendment 100A - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 100A disagreed.
Lord Warner
Lord Warner
My Lords, we have come to Clause 20, which covers the Secretary of State’s mandate to the National Commissioning Board and the wide range of duties placed on the board. This gives us an opportunity to probe the Government’s intention vis-à-vis this board and their perspective on the relationship between the board and the Secretary of State. I find myself taking something of an ambivalent attitude to the board which, if I may say to the Minister, was a major reason for my being very unattracted to the idea of chairing it when I was approached. At the heart of that ambivalence is a wish to stop elected Ministers and their henchpersons—if I may use that term—at Richmond House interfering endlessly in the day-to-day management of the NHS. But against that there is also a serious disbelief that when anything goes significantly wrong in some part of the NHS, the Secretary of State will be able to say, “Nothing to do with me, guv. Talk to Malcolm Grant and David Nicholson”. I certainly do not see the Health Secretary of the day having the kind of detached relationship with the national Commissioning Board chair that Professor Malcolm Grant seems to envisage in his public utterances. Those remarks suggest that the new national Commissioning Board chair sees himself being left in political peace for two to three years once the mandate has been agreed with the Health Secretary. My experience both as a Minister and as a senior civil servant is that he is deluding himself if he thinks that that is going to happen, but I shall be happy to hear from the Minister what his views are on the relationship between the board and the Secretary of State.
The first of the amendments in this group, Amendment 96, suggests the placing of a numerical limit on the number of items in the annual mandate provided for in proposed new Section 13A(1). I was prompted to do this by some rumours emanating from the Whitehall gossip mill suggesting that Andrew Lansley saw the mandate as a booklet of indeterminate size along the lines of the operating framework, while David Nicholson saw it as a couple of sides of A4. We want to probe further what the Minister sees as the Government’s approach to the mandate. These rumours took me back to three happy years in the early 1990s when I chaired a health authority, at a time when it had 50-odd priorities that had to be accounted for annually at a session with the RHA chairman. In practice, the NHS had no priorities then because the shopping list was too long. However, everybody kidded themselves and felt rather good about life because they felt that they were being held to account for the delivery of a substantial number of worthy and desirable objectives.
Amendment 96 tries to place a limit—admittedly somewhat arbitrarily—on the scale of the marching orders that the Secretary of State can give each year to the national Commissioning Board. At the same time it tries to distinguish between what one might call must-do’s and “attempts to seriously do”-type items. It proposes five of each. As someone who has managed big public sector organisations, I have never attempted to give my managers more than five or six must-do’s in any one year, together with a few development items. We need to understand from the Minister the scale of the remit that will feature in this mandate and that will be given to the board. That is the setting in which I think we want to discuss this and I would certainly be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on the scale of that mandate in terms of the number of priority areas that it is likely to contain. How will the mandate differ from the annual operating framework that has been used to guide the NHS in its priorities over recent years and which has itself got bigger and bigger as time has passed? How will the mandate be related to the resources given to the board and, indeed, the inflation factor allowed for in the resource assumptions underpinning that mandate? The latter is critical in any mandating process because healthcare inflation is typically greater than RPI or CPI, for a variety of reasons which we need not go into today. Keeping healthcare inflation nearer to CPI would be one way of driving NHS productivity. The mandate’s financial underpinning is a critical factor.
Amendment 98 is based on the idea of the Permanent Secretary’s letter to a Minister when, having tried everything else, a top civil servant is instructed for political reasons to do something which is, in his or her eyes, essentially against the public interest. We need some transparency in the relationship of the Health Secretary to the board when totally impracticable or unaffordable instructions are included in the mandate by an elected Minister. Amendment 98 tries to give the board a right to raise this formally with the Secretary of State when it thinks that what is being asked of it is totally impracticable, particularly in terms of the resources available.
Amendment 100 extends this transparency to any other persons consulted by the Secretary of State on the objectives and requirements in the mandate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s account of how these new mechanisms will work and how they will be made more transparent than the Bill provides for at present. I beg to move.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments, many of which are from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, because I, too, am worried that the Secretary of State may feel obliged to include in the mandate every last possible objective and priority that the department can think of. Let us remember that it will probably be the department’s civil servants that write the mandate.
For decades, the NHS has prescribed objective-setting as a sort of all-purpose remedy for NHS motivation. Rather than dispensing objectives as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for the NHS Commissioning Board, the Secretary of State needs to conceptualise his objectives in the mandate as prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side-effects and close supervision.
Given the impact that objective-setting has on activity in management, I should like to ask for a more self-critical and self-denying approach to the creation of the mandate than has hitherto been the case in NHS priority-setting—hence the rather arbitrary notion that we might have five “musts” and five “maybes”. I would like the Secretary of State to restrict his mandate to one side of A4, but I can see a departmental machine creating a mandate which reflects all the recent ministerial enthusiasms—for example, a waiting list here and a choice or two there—and which during its creation becomes a sizeable novel of the unattainable but desirable, or, alternatively, the attainable but unimportant, which were the characteristics of NHS priority lists in the past.
The mandate should answer the question: where do we want the NHS to go in the next five years, and specifically in the next year, and what resources are we going to dedicate to get there? We should then translate that into something specific that is measurable, achievable and realistic, with time for things that one wants to see for all objectives. If one has more than just a handful of objectives, I suspect that only two or three will ever get done. I therefore wonder how we can be reassured that the Secretary of State will produce a working document of realistic goals.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this is one of the most important groups of amendments that we are going to discuss, because, in a sense, it sets the whole relationship between the Secretary of State and the NHS Commissioning Board.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Warner’s Amendment 96, which seeks to avoid the Secretary of State essentially putting in a huge shopping list of demands by limiting the mandate to a maximum of five obligatory and five desirable functions.
I come back to the recent interventions by the Government in the affairs of the National Health Service. The most recent have been around waiting times, both in terms of what happens to patients who have passed the 18-week target and of the activities of some primary care trusts, which, in order to contain their expenditure, have set arbitrary waits for patients even though they are ultimately treated within the 18-week limit. I have said to the Minister that I have no complaint about the intervention of Secretary of State, which I thought was quite proper, but it is very difficult to see how this will happen under the new system. We have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to it. What in the new system will suddenly obviate the need for the Secretary of State to make such interventions?
The question then comes to the mandate. Is it, as my noble friend Lord Warner hopes, a high-level document which will focus on a very limited number of objectives, or will it be a shopping list? The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, expressed it very well as in a sense legitimising “recent ministerial enthusiasms”. We were rather given the lie to this when we debated this matter last week, because the Minister suggested that if there was an issue such as primary care trusts lengthening waiting in order to meet the budget, the mandate could be used to prevent it. Indeed, that is the risk—that the Secretary of State will, quite properly, come under pressure to intervene in the health service. The Bill weakens the legal powers of the Secretary of State to do so. The risk is clearly that the mandate will be used instead, and it would be used retrospectively if it does not satisfy the intervention power. I believe that there is great reservation among noble Lords as to whether the intervention power is sufficient, because there has basically to be a failure by the NHS Commissioning Board to carry out the objective. If it is not sufficient for an intervention to take place during the year, my goodness me the shopping list will grow when the new mandate is written. So, there are some very important issues on which we have yet to receive any answer from the Minister.
There are, however, a number of other important amendments in this group. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify three points. The first point is how long the mandate will last. My assumption, from what Ministers have said and what is in the Bill, is that it will last for a year. The Minister will be aware that the chairman of the NHS Commissioning Board expressed a wish to the Health Select Committee, which was vetting his appointment, that the mandate should last for three years. I wonder if the Minister could clear up that matter for your Lordships.
Will the Minister also clarify the intention behind the provision in proposed new Section 223D(7)(b), on page 27, which allows changes to total capital and revenue resource use after parliamentary general election takes place? I take it that this is simply to allow for a change of Government but I would be grateful if he could spell that out.
However, my substantive amendment, Amendment 100A, is concerned with parliamentary scrutiny. In Clause 20, proposed new Section 13A states:
“Before the start of each financial year, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a document to be known as ‘the mandate’”.
Surely Parliament is entitled to a little more involvement than merely receiving the mandate as a fait accompli. My noble friend Lord Warner has already pushed the Government in their amendment to give Parliament information about any reservations the board may have expressed about meeting the mandate. I would certainly support that in the interests of transparency. There is also, in Amendment 100, reference to the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the board, HealthWatch England and other persons, with the results of any consultation on the mandate to be published. That too seems reasonable.
However, I wonder if we ought not to go further in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. If we take Ministers at face value—and the Secretary of State has expressed a wish to step back from day-to-day involvement in the National Health Service—it is clear that the mandate assumes special importance. Why is Parliament not being given a proper opportunity to scrutinise the mandate before the Secretary of State finally sets it for the NHS Commissioning Board? If the Secretary of State is really going to tell Members of Parliament in particular that he is not going to intervene in a particular question because he considers that now to be the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board, in accordance with the mandate that the Secretary of State has set, then I think that Parliament should be entitled to some involvement in scrutiny of that mandate. My Amendment 100A suggests how that might be done. It is built on the system of scrutiny for national policy statements.
The House will be aware that the Planning Act 2008 introduced a new planning system for applications to build nationally significant infrastructure projects. They cover applications for major energy generation, railways, ports, roads, airports, water and hazardous waste infrastructure. Under this system, national policy on national infrastructure is set out in a series of national policy statements. Under Section 92 of the Planning Act 2008, each proposal for a national policy statement must be laid before Parliament. In so doing, the Secretary of State specifies a relevant period for parliamentary scrutiny.
If during that scrutiny period either House passes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or if a committee of either House makes recommendations regarding the proposal, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a Statement setting out his response to the resolution or recommendations. Following completion of parliamentary scrutiny, the Secretary of State may formally designate the proposal as a national policy statement. The final national policy statement is also laid before Parliament.
In the House of Lords, national policy statements are normally debated in Grand Committee, but that does not restrict the freedom of committees of the House or individual Members to make use of the statutory procedures. In the event of a Motion for resolution being tabled, the usual channels have undertaken to provide time for a debate in the Chamber within the scrutiny period.
When I was energy Minister, I had to bring through four energy policy statements. We had three four-hour debates in Grand Committee. They were very thorough. The Government took note of what took place in those debates. In the end, it is up to the Government to make the statement because it is a matter for the Executive. I do not challenge that the mandate, which I regard as important as a national policy statement, is ultimately for Ministers to make. It is rightfully an Executive responsibility. However, the process that I am suggesting in my Amendment 100A would allow Parliament to have much more involvement in the scrutiny. It would allow Ministers to take account of that and then make their minds up in relation to the mandate.
If the Government are determined to hand over such responsibility to a quango—and I remind the House that in this Bill the National Health Service Commissioning Board is given concurrent powers with the Secretary of State in relation to the crucial responsibility in Clause 1—there has to be a great parliamentary scrutiny of that mandate.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. They were prompted by the lack of clarity in the nature of the mandate that the Secretary of State will issue to the Commissioning Board. There is also a lack of clarity in how he will consult the public, although the provision does say that the Secretary of State will consult HealthWatch England prior to issuing a mandate. Who else will be able to scrutinise the mandate?
On the basis that the Secretary of State will use the mandate to performance-manage the Commissioning Board, what will be the nature of the mandate that will allow him to do that? Will it have measurable outcomes against which the Secretary of State can performance-manage the Commissioning Board? What happens if the Commissioning Board does not agree with the mandate? How is that dispute settled? Will the financial aspects be a major part of it or will it be better outcomes for patients?
Lord Owen
My Lords, I support the amendment spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The case is utterly convincing in every respect. The use of the word “mandate” is strange in parliamentary terms. It presumably owes something to the idea of legitimacy. We talk of a mandate coming from the electorate. If the Bill is to use this term, I imagine that it is in the belief that it is a mandate from the Government. It has always been recognised that if there is a mandate from the electorate going to the Government then that mandate from the Government must be checked by Parliament. It would be extraordinary if there was any period when the mandate could not be discussed. It has been widely said that the mandate will last for a year, although that has not been officially confirmed. It is essential that we hear from the Minister how long the mandate will run. But with a period of even six months it would be irresponsible for Parliament not to comment on it and have the facility to debate it.
Here we come to the nub of this whole question. We have already been there on the question of the Secretary of State’s powers. Are we really considering putting this vast block of government expenditure out into the void with no requirement or capacity for the Government to be held to account by Parliament? This is an absolutely essential amendment. Were it to be rejected, we would have a very clear idea of what the Government’s views are about the role of the Secretary of State. I have said before that I call this Bill the Abdication of the Secretary of State Bill.
We can argue about this but the Government have a majority and are going to push this legislation through. For all the balmy words and the assurances we hear, this legislation will, I am sure, near the end of the day, emerge very much as it was originally presented. There is a logic to it and there is no doubt that the Secretary of State has not come to his position lightly or without thought. He was in opposition for many years and is very knowledgeable about the health service. He has a philosophical position. He wishes to take the NHS out of politics—the old slogan of the BMA for years and years. However, that position was rejected by every single Conservative Government since the Act was first introduced because they believed it was impossible to take such a large sum of money out of the realm of politics. It seems amazing that we have not yet had a single, serious argument as to why this strange new philosophy should be introduced. Where there is substantial government expenditure, which comes from taxpayers and is not owned by the Government, there should be accountability throughout the process.
I have also raised another, and, I feel, much deeper, issue. The British people, over all these years, have accepted that our spending on health—which is actually less than that of many other comparable nations—is rationed. It is no use us ducking the fact that we are making massive changes to an institution that has extraordinary levels of public support and has had such support ever since it was introduced. The fundamental reason—I can find no other justification—is that there is a sense among the British people that they have had their say in this rationing process. They have had a mechanism for feeling that the choices and distribution of finances have been debated and that therefore it is a choice they can support. If we tamper with that process, we tamper with a very serious element—this acceptance of the rationing process and this support for the NHS.
Some measure of parliamentary accountability has to be written into the Bill at every juncture where it makes sense. This will come up in the debates on the Secretary of State’s powers, which are still to come, but many of us have expressed the view—I have certainly written about it—that the health service is overcentralised, that a degree of decentralisation in decision-making is necessary, and that there needs to be less micromanagement. These issues are broadly accepted. But we come now to this mandate. I would have chosen a different word and a different mechanism. However, if that is the only mechanism we can amend, how can we reject the idea of some measure of parliamentary accountability, of writing in some other priorities and of questioning the decisions of the Minister?
Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is very necessary. He and I may remember a day when the Secretary of State at the time was intent on the policy of pay beds. I was fully associated with the policy, even though I am not so sure it was the wisest policy in retrospect. It was very interesting that the then Permanent Secretary exercised his responsibility and came in and argued against the proposition. We claimed we had a mandate from the electorate as it had been in the Labour Party manifesto in the 1974 election. He nevertheless produced a rational argument why that should not be done at that particular time, following the reorganisation of the National Health Service. The noble Lord will remember this very well because he was on a committee that was looking at this very issue. The Permanent Secretary said that it was the wrong timing quite apart from the issue of principle as to whether the measure constituted the right politics. I should say in fairness to the then Secretary of State, Barbara Castle, that she gave him a proper hearing, questioned him and explained the situation. He said at the end of the day, “If you decide to go ahead with it, that is your choice and we will loyally support it”. I think that few people who dealt with those officials had any belief that they had anything other than 100 per cent commitment to the measure. They had fulfilled their constitutional responsibilities and there would have been much merit in the issue being forced out and discussed. People should have known that opinion. In our present system these opinions do not often come forward.
At least under the system in place at that time there was constant scrutiny of the Secretary of State through Parliament. In this situation where the Secretary of State, having issued his mandate, will pull out of any form of day-to-day accountability in Parliament, scrutiny becomes ever more necessary. The transparency has to be on both sides. The officials—in this case, the Commissioning Board—have a perfectly reasonable right to make clear to Secretaries of State that they think the mandate that has been pushed on to them is not deliverable. That should then be made known to the public. Similarly, the commission and the Secretary of State should know what Parliament’s view of the issue is. I await the Minister’s response, which will flavour a lot of one’s attitude to other important debates about the powers of the Secretary of State which we have still to resolve. The Government should indicate whether this is a totally “geek” Bill with the strange philosophical position that Parliament must never put its dirty fingers on any aspect of the National Health Service. Are we to have a grown-up, adult debate about the degree of decentralisation and the degree of management that will be devolved, or are we going to have a clear-cut line whereby Parliament in effect has no responsibilities at all?
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I confess that I am something of a cynic about some of the proposals in the Bill. I am a great believer in the principle of localism, the local determination of services and local decision-making. Therefore, in principle I would applaud any Government—even this Government—who desire to devolve responsibility for various things to local authorities and, in this case, local commissioning groups.
However, my cynicism kicks in because what I suspect is happening here—I suspect that it will happen in other service areas—is that Ministers are cynically saying, “We are leaving these responsibilities to you, the local bodies concerned. We are very happy for you to make all these decisions. The snag is that we will not provide you with the resources to meet all the expectations that the public, who rely on those services, might legitimately have hoped to be provided. However, we are not taking these decisions. We will not be involved. It is a matter for local determination”. To be honest, I think that is what underpins much of the localism, devolution or autonomy agenda that we are seeing.
However, the experience of all previous experiments of localism is that while Ministers say, “Yes, this is a wonderful idea. We want to do it”, pressure starts to be applied to particular things. They want to have a mechanism whereby they can say, “It is, of course, your decision. However, we want you to make sure that these things happen”. Gradually, the list of the things that must happen gets longer and longer and the list of areas of discretion gets shorter and shorter.
When I saw the proposal for a mandate to be in the Bill, I thought that that was the mechanism whereby on the one hand Ministers will proclaim that they have no involvement in these decisions and say that they are all local decisions, but on the other hand this will enable them to ensure that certain things still happen because they are being subjected, as elected politicians, to pressure to make sure that they happen. That is why the amendment of my noble friend Lord Warner, which would restrict the extent to which this could be done, is very important. If we do not have an amendment of that sort in the Bill, I can tell you now what will happen; every single pressure group, voluntary organisation and lobby will say, “We want included in the mandate”, which is being issued to the national Commissioning Board, “the following service. We will want to see it there.”
For any sensible Minister the simple answer to all this is to write an extremely long mandate that covers all those points rather than sticks to them. If they were obliged to be limited to just five or six or another small number of issues, that would be extremely salutary. It would stop the creep that would happen. However, I suspect that the Government are not going to say suddenly, “My goodness, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has come up with an excellent idea. Why didn’t we think of that? We must accept it, of course”, because unfortunately that is not always the way in which government Ministers react. They will stick to the letter of the Bill without those specifications. They will say, “Well, why five? Why not 10? Why not 12? What about three?”. All these different things will be argued as an excuse for not doing it. You will then get the drift and the pressure to say that more and more things must be added.
Amendment 100A is so important because there must be parliamentary scrutiny of what is happening, because this will be the mechanism that drives decision-making in the NHS. It is not going to be a pure version of devolution, localism and autonomy; this is going to be done through the mandate. The mandate is then going to be the most important document that drives the NHS at any one moment. That is why parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Parliament must have the opportunity not just to see it and to know what is being done in the name of the public but to comment, amend, or put forward amendments and have the Government respond to them.
I therefore hope that when the Minister responds he will accept not only the principle of my noble friend Lord Warner’s amendment but the principle of detailed parliamentary involvement in this process in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I will comment further on Amendment 98. One of the great qualities of the amendment is that it would oblige all of us to confront directly the huge strain between the rising demand—4 per cent a year over recent years—for National Health Service services, and the limitations on resources to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has eloquently referred. It is vital that if we are going to carry the public with us in making the changes, which will be required regardless of whether the NHS survives or not, to service configurations, to the way in which ancillary professions are used, and to the whole range of community activity and help, we have to get the whole of the public and Parliament to understand how acute the pressures on resources are and how very necessary the need for change is.
It is therefore vital that we take due responsibility as Parliament and as a whole nation for the changes that will be required. All of us in this House recognise that service configuration is going to be the key way in which we deliver quality services with straitened resources. However, we should not pretend to ourselves that service configuration will be anything but extremely difficult. It will be politically difficult in particular, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, pointed out. Any time you configure a service in a way that, for example, results in the closure of hospitals or other medical centres, you will encounter huge public resistance, because the public like, as is very much evident, exactly what they have. It is very sad that we have to explain, regardless of how we vote on this amendment or any other amendment, that there is this straitened position between resources and demand.
That is why Parliament, too, must accept its responsibility and not press for changes that simply cannot be afforded. Unless we have an amendment like Amendment 98, which is fundamentally part of the whole parliamentary structure within which the NHS or any other form of health service has to operate, we will not start on the crucial business of persuading and training the public as well as the medical profession and ourselves about the absolute necessity of fundamental change, regardless of the actual management structure that we happen to have at the time. I personally believe the NHS has a remarkable management structure. There are others who believe that it does not, but the one thing one can say is that the crucial issue is not so much management structure as how one actually handles the massive process of change that now confronts us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I hope that I can demonstrate to the Committee that the portrayal of what the Government intend through these provisions is a false one. We wish to create a transparent and accountable system in which every organisation understands its duties and responsibilities. Clause 20 sets out further provisions for the NHS Commissioning Board. It requires the Secretary of State to publish a mandate to the board setting out objectives and requirements as well as the board’s resource limits. The mandate is one of the key levers that Ministers will have in order to set a national health policy and influence the way in which taxpayers' money is spent on delivering NHS services. It lies at the heart of the Secretary of State’s continuing accountability for the health service.
In a moment, I shall cover the provisions concerning transparency prior to the publication of the mandate, but once the mandate has been published, the Bill requires the board to publish its business plan, setting out how it will deliver it. The Bill also requires it to report on what it has previously achieved in its annual report laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State must then publish an assessment of the board's performance. Taken together, that will provide what we believe is an unprecedented degree of transparency about what the NHS is asked to achieve and what is delivered.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested that, having issued the mandate, the Secretary of State would detach himself from the health service from that point on. That has never been our vision and it will not happen. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in regard to his example of waiting times, that he will know that the board and all the commissioners will have to have regard to the NHS constitution, and within the NHS constitution is a standard which says that patients can expect to wait no longer than 18 weeks. That duty is in the Bill and we do not intend to change it. It is also open to the Secretary of State to stipulate conditions to be included in the NHS standard contract. Again, the noble Lord will know that within the NHS standard contract there is a stipulation about waiting times.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to keep the board's performance against the mandate under review throughout the year, over and above his general duty to review the performance of all national bodies. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Owen, to Clause 49 of the Bill which sets out that duty.
Amendments 96 and 153A, tabled respectively by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Hunt, would limit the number of objectives in the mandate and remove the ability to amend it in-year following an election. I do not yet know how many objectives the mandate will contain. That will emerge from the process of engagement and public consultation that we will undertake, but I am confident that, given that the NHS Commissioning Board will receive around £80 billion of funding, there will be many more than 10. Setting an arbitrary limit, as the amendment seeks to do, would undermine Ministers’ legitimate ability to set strategic policy for the NHS.
As a result, although I support the broad intention of the noble Lords, I think a better way of achieving the desired outcome is not to put crude limits on Ministers’ powers, but to ensure that they are used proportionately. That is what the autonomy duty in Clause 4 does. I hope that helps to explain to the noble Lords why we think that duty is so important.
The noble Lord asked whether the mandate would contain desirable as well as obligatory objectives for the Commissioning Board. That is not our intention. The Bill will require the board to seek to achieve all the objectives in the mandate and the board will then be legally required to comply with all the requirements set out in the mandate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about the period—
Lord Warner
I would like to pursue the last point the Minister made. Is he saying that, after a lot of consultation, the Secretary of State may say, “I have 35 objectives for you, laid out in the mandate, and I claim that the justification for that is the consultation process that we have had. You, the national Commissioning Board, better get on with it, and we will look at what you have done at the end of 12 months to see whether you have delivered those 35 objectives”? Can the Minister give us some idea what failure would look like? Would it mean failure on 10 objectives, or five, or 15? Where does the point come when the chairman and the chief executive get fired because they have not delivered the objectives in the mandate?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is taking us into a hypothetical realm. I understand why he is asking those questions, and I think the answer would depend on the degree and scale of the failure. I have just said that the Bill requires the board to seek to achieve all the objectives in the mandate. It would be up to the Secretary of State to judge whether it had used its best endeavours to do that. The performance of the board will be a matter of public record; it will be up to Parliament to take a view on that, as well.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could, or would, the mandate include any way to prioritise between the potentially 35 different tasks that are being imposed on the board?
Earl Howe
It could do. However, that is to be determined. I would welcome the views of the noble Lord on that, if he has particular examples in mind.
This brings us to the question the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the period which the mandate will cover. It will be a multi-year document, updated annually, which is intended to provide a stable policy context for the board. There may be circumstances which call for the mandate to be updated in-year, including after a general election, to ensure that an incoming Government could start to implement their manifesto commitments for the NHS in-year. Any revisions to the mandate will be open and transparent. If the mandate is revised, it must be published and laid before Parliament with an explanation of the changes.
I will now comment on Amendments 98 and 100, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and Amendment 100A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. These rightly highlight the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny of the mandate. I completely sign up to transparency as a principle. In the first place, there will be a public consultation. Alongside that, we will engage with stakeholders, including the board, to ensure that we set ambitious but achievable objectives. It is essential that the Government hold the board to account for objectives that are achievable. It is not in anybody’s interests to set the board up to fail. At the same time, where there is scope for improvement in the health service within the resources available, the mandate should and will ask the board to drive such improvements.
Ministers have a legitimate right to be ambitious on behalf of citizens and taxpayers, but we know that getting the balance right and setting objectives that are affordable and ambitious will not be straightforward. Much of the answer lies in transparency. There will be open public consultation on the Government’s objectives for the NHS. I can assure noble Lords that the process of developing the mandate will be open and consultative, including a formal 12-week public consultation. We intend to publish a consultation response as well as a summary of the responses we receive.
I point out that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the board and HealthWatch England before specifying the objectives and requirements in the mandate. We should be clear about how that changes the current arrangements. At present, decisions about the Secretary of State’s priorities for the NHS can be decided without reference to, or consultation with, anyone, as we saw under previous Governments. Top-down targets can be set without consultation. The priorities for the NHS are issued around this time every year through an operating framework without any need for consultation. Under the Bill, for the first time parliamentarians and the public will have the opportunity to consider and challenge the Government's objectives for the NHS every year. No previous Government have ever allowed this. It will highlight and reinforce, year by year, Ministers’ overarching responsibility for a comprehensive National Health Service free at the point of need.
The consultation will provide a period in which Parliament will be able to scrutinise the Government's proposals—as will the Health Select Committee if it chooses. It is appropriate that this consultation should take place before the mandate is published. We must provide clarity of purpose for the NHS. A period of additional parliamentary scrutiny after the mandate is published, which is what the amendment proposes, would be disproportionate and very disruptive. It would reduce the time the NHS has for planning and would create uncertainty in the service.
There will of course be formal parliamentary control over any legal requirements set for the NHS through the standing rules and any other regulations. The Bill not only gives Parliament an unprecedented role in setting out the roles and responsibilities in the NHS but increases parliamentary scrutiny by requiring detailed parameters and requirements to be set in regulations rather than in ministerial directions that have no scrutiny at all. I hope that noble Lords will give the Government credit for that package of proposals.
In addition, we have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the requirements in the mandate should have the force of legislation and should be in an instrument subject to the negative procedure.
Lord Owen
It sounds very reasonable, but effectively the pre-consultation period will involve the board, HealthWatch England and such other persons as the Secretary of State allows. Parliament will not always be fobbed off with the answer that the Minister is still considering the issue. That is perfectly reasonable; we all know that a normal consultation period is required by all ministries, and certainly the Department of Health has observed this over many decades. It is when the Minister makes up his mind that Parliament will know what the policy is—and if it is in legislation it will be at that stage that there will be an intervention from Parliament with the right to challenge it. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask Parliament to come in after the consultation period because then it will know what the Secretary of State is proposing.
Earl Howe
Of course, Parliament is the sovereign body and can do whatever it chooses. Nothing will prevent it commenting on the mandate once it has been published. No doubt the Health Select Committee will wish to do this. My point is that to expect the process to feed into a regurgitation or reformulation of the mandate would be unfair on the NHS. The opportunity for Parliament to have its say should surely be during the normal consultation period. Parliament will be able to see the extent to which the Secretary of State has responded to whatever comments it has made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I take up the point that any debate in Parliament should be after consultation has taken place so that Parliament will know what the Secretary of State has decided. The Minister said that this would be debated by a sovereign Parliament. However, he will know that translating that into real time for debates in which noble Lords can question Ministers is problematic. The beauty of the Planning Act 2008 was that it laid down a requirement that was then turned into procedure. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on this. As he rightly said, this mandate is a very important indication to the health service of the Secretary of State’s wishes. If the department gave some further thought to this matter, it might come to the conclusion that it would be right to allow parliamentarians to have a go at the mandate—to question Ministers—before it is finally signed off.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I was just about to comment on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the requirements in the mandate should have the force of legislation, in an instrument subject to the negative procedure. The board will have to comply with the requirements in order to support delivery of the objectives in the mandate that it must seek to achieve. Parliament will therefore be able to scrutinise the requirements after the mandate is published. We will bring forward a government amendment at Report stage to achieve that recommendation of your Lordships’ committee.
That is not the same as opening up the actual objectives in the mandate—that is to say, the direction and the strategy that the Government of the day want to set for the NHS—and rightly so. If that were to happen, it would lead to unwelcome delay and uncertainty for the health service. The Delegated Powers Committee, which has great expertise in this area, did not suggest that any further parliamentary scrutiny of the mandate was necessary. I can reassure the Committee that if Parliament were to make a recommendation concerning the mandate after it is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State would undoubtedly have to respond, just as Ministers do now as a matter of course.
Lord Warner
I have been cogitating what the Minister has been saying, in his normal, plausible way, about the consultation with everybody before the mandate is agreed by the Secretary of State. The trouble that I have with that, worthy though it is, is that it does not really deal with the point in my Amendment 98, and in some ways it makes the situation worse. My amendment is all about how the national Commissioning Board answers back and tells Parliament if it thinks that the final mandate is undeliverable. That is the purpose. If you have extensive public consultation, the point that my noble friend Lord Harris made earlier comes into play. I am sorry to have got a bit fixated about the figure of 35, but you end up with 35 propositions in the mandate, and the money available to the Secretary of State at that point is still the same as when he went out to public consultation. We run an even greater risk of having a very overloaded mandate, with lots of items in it which come out of the public consultation. The money has not changed. The board is expected to deliver a larger number of things with the same amount of money. That is why my Amendment 98 becomes even more important if the Minister is going down the path that he says that the Government are going down.
Earl Howe
As I said, there will be full public consultation on the mandate. It would of course be possible for the Health Select Committee or indeed other parliamentarians to scrutinise and challenge the mandate at that point. If changes to the mandate were made in-year as a result of that process—that is not inconceivable—then a revised mandate would be published. It would be laid before Parliament with an explanation. After the mandate comes into force in April 2013, Parliament will have all the usual opportunities to ask questions about the performance of the board against the mandate. The board in addition will include in its annual report an assessment of performance against the mandate, and that will be published and laid before Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me how we will know what the board said when it is consulted about the mandate. As I am sure he knows, the Government have a code of practice on consultation that we would follow. That code sets out the expectation for the Government to respond to the consultation and in doing so to provide a summary of the views expressed to each question as well as of what decisions have been taken in the light of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked a question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, also asked me about what would happen if the board disagrees with the mandate. The mandate sets out the objectives that the Secretary of State considers the board should seek to achieve. Those objectives will be developed in close co-operation with the board. It will not be a detached process. Indeed, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the board before setting the mandate. Nevertheless, decisions about the content of the mandate will ultimately rest with the Secretary of State, and I contend that that is entirely appropriate. It is the Secretary of State taking responsibility on behalf of the Government for what he is requiring the board to achieve.
I hope that I have shown that the level of transparency and of public accountability over the mandate will be very great indeed. I do not share noble Lords’ apprehensions that somehow Parliament will have no opportunity to comment on the mandate. Quite the reverse is the case. We will ensure that it does, and it is right that it does. This is an entirely new situation for the NHS. I hope that that is welcome to noble Lords and that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
I wonder whether the Minister can help me with a point he made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Owen. He was raising some important points of principle about the Secretary of State’s role and the way in which it, as it were, percolates through so many of the provisions in the Bill, and the Minister referred to Clause 49 as being something that should ease those concerns. I realise that we are not discussing Clause 49 at the moment, but the Minister and the Committee will remember that the Select Committee on the Constitution was concerned that Clause 49 was not an adequate answer to some of these points of principle that were raised by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Can the Minister help me this afternoon on that?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness knows that I have undertaken to engage in discussions outside this Chamber about Clauses 1 and 4 and their relationship with Clauses 10 and 20, and that is what I intend to do. There is a broader question here. My point to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who suggested in his opening speech that somehow the Secretary of State would detach himself and say, “Not me, guv” about anything that happened in the health service, is that they are mistaken because Clause 49 requires the Secretary of State to keep health service functions under review—in other words, not just the functions, but the effectiveness of the exercise by the bodies of those functions in relation to the health service. That is a very powerful duty. It is not a signal that the Secretary of State can just detach himself from what is going on in the health service. If he is holding the board to account, it involves him doing what Clause 49 requires, and I do not think that anything in the Bill negates that.
Lord Owen
The procedure in another place is deliberately very limited in terms of getting to a legislative change. This mandate has many of the qualities of legislation. It lasts for a year. It is going be a fixed statement. Is the Minister really telling us that the Secretary of State will not be saying that, because the mandate has been given, this is a question for the commission or the board—one which he would normally accept on the Floor of the House? Past experience is that he will pass that responsibility on the Floor of the House to, in this case, the commission. This is what concerns many people: there will be a change in procedure in how questions are answered in the House of Commons. The Minister has still not answered the question. This amendment allows a substantive change in the mandate that would stay for a year to be instituted by Parliament after it knows what is in the Minister’s mind, and he appears to be rejecting that. Is he rejecting that?
Earl Howe
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, thinks that the health service should be run in that way; that is, Parliament in effect mandating requirements to the health service whenever it chooses. I do not think that is a helpful idea. I think it is helpful for the Secretary of State, as now, to take responsibility for the health service but in the future to take direct responsibility for what lies in the mandate. Should events during a given year raise questions about the performance of the board, the Secretary of State would be answerable to Parliament for whatever the event was, and he would indeed have to take the necessary advice from the board. What he would not be saying is, “This is not my concern, guv”. He is answerable to Parliament in the ways that I have indicated. There is obviously a need for the board to take responsibility for the day-to-day management of the health service. However, we are seeking to achieve a balance between the Secretary of State taking responsibility in Parliament for what is in the mandate and the outcomes that he has set for the health service.
This is a shift of responsibility, it is not an abdication of responsibility—that is the distinction. Power is a zero sum game. If you shift power from the Secretary of State down to the health service, you cannot at the same time expect the Secretary of State to retain the same degree of power. We are transferring power in two directions; from the Secretary of State downwards, and from the Secretary of State upwards to Parliament. That is the picture that I hope noble Lords will keep in their minds.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but there are some extra points here. What we have seen from the Secretary of State recently is no desire to desist from day-to-day involvement in the National Health Service. We have seen a number of interventions—which, as the noble Earl knows, I welcome; I believe that is the duty of the Secretary of State. I am still completely mystified as to how the Secretary of State will do this in the future. I can see that you have the NHS constitution; I can see that in the objectives set in the mandate the Secretary of State will say to the NHS Commissioning Board, “You will do the right thing on waiting times”. However, what happens if, because of resource constraints, clinical commissioning groups put in artificial devices to extend waiting while still meeting the 18-week targets? They will be okay under the constitution, but that action is found to be unacceptable in PCTs now. Where does the intervention come? The Secretary of State will be required by Parliament to intervene. There will be no getting away from that.
The second point is about accountability upwards. I say again to the noble Earl that I do not know why he will not take this point away. We have the Planning Act 2008; we have had a highly successful process of examining national policy statements, which must be of the same degree of importance as the mandate. It has been clearly set out how Parliament will scrutinise those: it allows in your Lordships’ House a process in Grand Committee and then in your Lordships’ Chamber if a Motion is moved. However, at the end of the day the Secretary of State can ignore what Parliament says because it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to set the national policy statement as he would the mandate. If the Government are claiming that this is an appreciable shift of power, I am puzzled as to why on earth Parliament is not allowed more involvement in scrutinising the mandate.
Earl Howe
Because it would get Parliament into the territory of micromanaging the health service, if it so chose. That is not the territory we would want to be in, any more than we wish the Secretary of State to micromanage the health service. That is the problem. The Secretary of State has to take responsibility for the objectives set for the health service. I think there is a general acceptance among those in the health service and indeed the public at large that the health service has to be judged on a different set of measures than it has been in the past—namely, on its outcomes and the cost effectiveness with which it approaches the use of the budget given to it.
We believe that undue political influence is undesirable. Parliament is capable of exercising that kind of interference every bit as much as a Secretary of State. We are saying, however, that Parliament has every right to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s proposals, to feed into those proposals, to be listened to and to be responded to. However, in our contention, it is undesirable for us to go beyond that because in the end, the health service has to know where it stands. If this is an endless process of Parliament second guessing the mandate and coming forward all the time with suggested changes, we will not have a workable system.
Lord Warner
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on Amendment 96. I cannot say that I have been convinced by the noble Earl’s argument that he will not have a large amount of clutter in this mandate as a result of this public consultation. The poor old NHS will have to make the best of it. I suspect that at some stage we will come back to this issue of placing some limit on the objectives and requirements. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 96.
Lord Warner
Lord Warner
My Lords, I found the arguments used by the noble Earl on this particular amendment in this debate utterly unconvincing. We have a very serious risk, in the process he described, of a level of overload on the board which is unrealistic in relation to the resources available. I can just imagine the kind of negotiations that will take place between Richmond House and the board, wherever it is, up in Leeds, to try to ensure that the Secretary of State is not embarrassed. We need something along the lines of Amendment 98. The noble Earl has not been willing to take this away and consider it, and so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Patel
“(b) Healthwatch England, and”
Lord Patel
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Yesterday afternoon I told them that I was degrouping these amendments to be taken at a later stage of the Committee. That was, however, before I got beaten up later in the day and lost my normal aggression. I had to retable them and I apologise for that. I hope that it is possible to take them today.
I will concentrate mainly on HealthWatch England. The purpose of this amendment is simple—to make both HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations independent bodies and, in doing so, to give patients and public a truly independent voice. It does not change the broad thrust of the policy in any way, nor does it have any more resource implications.
In the Government’s list of intentions for HealthWatch England, the Minister recognised the need for it to maintain independence; to set its own work programme; to publish its own annual report to Parliament; and to have independent membership. He also said that regulation would be brought forward by the Secretary of State in relation to this. It would also provide advice directly to the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor and local authorities. At the same time, the list also suggests that HealthWatch England will be able to advise the Care Quality Commission on the views of people who use the service; that it will be a committee of the CQC; and that the CQC will respond in writing to HealthWatch England’s advice.
HealthWatch England’s operating plan, which was discussed by the CQC board, suggests that its main focus will be local; it will be small and strategic; its accounting officer will be the CEO of the CQC; its staff will be employed by the CQC; and service-level agreement on its functions will be put in place. The plan also suggests that HealthWatch England’s committee will be appointed by the CQC; that its chair will be subject to CQC board governance; and that conflicts of interest will be decided by the board. HealthWatch England will publish reports on a “no surprise” basis. This is quite contrary to the suggestion that HealthWatch England should be independent of the CQC. The CQC clearly sees itself having a close relationship with HealthWatch England, with the latter relying on it for significant analytical intelligence and other analytics and data. Joint data collection will not be appropriate for the diverse functions of the two organisations. The relationship between the two has not had a good start either, with LINks and others feeling that they have not been fully consulted by the CQC in developing the plan.
The proposed duties of HealthWatch England are intended to provide local healthwatch organisations with advice and assistance in relation to promoting and supporting the involvement of people in the commissioning, provision and scrutiny of local care services. Under the duties, people will be able to monitor local health and social care services; their views will be obtained on the standard of local services; and information will be gathered on local need for and experiences of care services. Recommendations will be made to commissioners and providers of services about how local care services could or should be improved.
The relationship between HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations is important. The Bill establishes HealthWatch England as a statutory committee. Ministers say that the relationship between HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations must be an open dialogue so that critical knowledge of the views and experiences of patients and local service users will have a real influence on the delivery of health and social care. The aspiration is that local healthwatch organisations and HealthWatch England will collaborate with local authorities and clinical commissioning groups. However, the Bill does not give local healthwatch organisations any specific role in relation to clinical commissioning groups. They have no direct role in influencing the commissioning arrangements of CCGs in relation to the needs of local people, nor do they have any say in it.
In my view, therefore, HealthWatch England should be established as an independent body outside the CQC; be the guarantor of an independent local community voice; have clear accountability to local healthwatch organisations; and have adequate resourcing—there are concerns that the CQC will not adequately fund HealthWatch England. It should provide an expert team that has the knowledge and experience to build HealthWatch; and support the transition of LINks into healthwatch organisations and the development of local healthwatch’s ability to carry out its five statutory functions. It should provide local healthwatch organisations with support, training, advice, resources and expertise on health and social care policy, legal processes and myriad other issues if local healthwatch is to take off quickly. On the basis of current and previous experiences, I feel that the CQC’s belief that local healthwatch can be built and become operational quickly is misplaced—that is the experience of LINks, too.
HealthWatch England should have a capacity to carry out research that is needed by local healthwatch organisations to support their work. HealthWatch England should support the development of local expertise to gather information and data from all sources—public, patients, complaints and serious incident investigations—so that it has a well developed and informed view of the state of local health and social care services. It should support the development of regional healthwatch organisations so that a powerful regional voice on services and commissioning can be developed. It should provide the capacity to elevate local and regional demands for better health and social care to the NHS Commissioning Board, the Secretary of State, Monitor and the CQC. It should support the co-ordination of major demands for changes to health and social care policy and commissioning, integrating local healthwatch.
It was pointed out to the CQC that a research capability was essential for HealthWatch to function. If a potential service problem is suspected, it is necessary to check how widespread it is. Beyond this, the organisation must be able to carry out original research on consumer needs in order to improve services. No research capability had been placed in the plan that the CQC develops. It appeared in meetings with LINks that the CQC might commission research, but we know from examples that research at a local level is important—staff being the classic example.
Diverse and inclusive healthwatch organisations could substantially increase the power and influence of local people to monitor services more effectively, improve safety, influence commissioning and provide a voice that will be heard in the local, regional and national development of health and care policies. To be effective, HealthWatch, nationally and locally, must be fully independent and democratic. Others with experience have informed me that the dependent relationship that HealthWatch is intended to have in relation to local authorities is deeply flawed. They believe the proposed system will be expensive and difficult to establish. The decision not to ring-fence funding will make these bodies weak and vulnerable.
The way forward is for HealthWatch England to be an independent body helping the local healthwatch organisations, which should also be independent of the local authority. If the Government are serious about what they say—that the Bill is about putting patients and the public at the centre and the slogan, “no decision about me without me”,is what they wish to follow—then the way to create public confidence is to have HealthWatch England as an independent body. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I start by saying that I was not one of the ones who beat up the noble Lord, Lord Patel, over grouping issues, although it was extremely frustrating to have them appear and disappear all the time. Anyway, we now have our list and I am speaking to that.
I am pleased to support the amendments in the group, which have two important aims: first, to ensure that HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations are truly involved and consulted where decisions are made about the development and planning of commissioning services and on reconfiguration or changes to services; secondly, to ensure that it is an independent statutory body and not a subcommittee of the Care Quality Commission.
The Government’s far-reaching proposed changes to the NHS, with the emphasis on competition and regulation, make the need for HealthWatch England to be given robust and independent scrutiny powers even more important. Amendment 305 from my noble friend Lord Harris and myself is a probing amendment with the intention of ensuring that HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations have the strengthened power and functions they need. It establishes HealthWatch England as an independent body responsible for providing the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and local authorities with information and advice on the views, needs and experiences of users of health and social services, and the views of local healthwatch organisations on care standards and how they can be improved.
Under Amendment 305, HealthWatch England is responsible for providing local healthwatch organisations with resources, advice and assistance. The amendments of my noble friend Lord Whitty, Amendments 318C and 318D, set out similar and additional powers and functions for HealthWatch England to those proposed in Amendment 305. We fully support these, which include powers of investigation into complaints and powers to seek disclosure of information from health and social care providers, the NHS Commissioning Board, CQC and others. Important functions also include information, research and representation functions.
The independence of HealthWatch England from the Care Quality Commission is vital if it is to be the national service users watchdog and champion. It must be able to hold regulators in the whole of the health and social care system to account and be the independent guarantor of the rights, duties and independence of local healthwatch organisations. Given the uncertainties still surrounding how Monitor and the CQC will work together, and the current trials and tribulations facing the CQC, how realistic is it to expect the CQC to undertake this role or for HealthWatch England to function properly as a CQC committee?
Does the Minister acknowledge these problems? Will he—or she—consider working with NLAM and other interested stakeholders to produce an alternative model for HealthWatch England that will secure the Government’s stated policy for a powerful and independent system of public involvement in health and social care? To be effective, local healthwatch must be able to scrutinise how consortia and health and well-being boards undertake public engagement and transparency and are ensuing that the public voice is embedded in the care pathway design. They should also be given the right to comment on tenders and commissioning contracts before release.
LINks organisations currently have significant powers to enter and view the premises of all health and social care providers regulated by the CQC—another potential conflict of interest if the CQC relationship is not changed. These powers are often little used by local LINks organisations and we hope that their retention in the Bill and robust guidance to local healthwatch organisations on how they can be applied to the benefit of improved patient care and treatment will lead to these important powers being more frequently used. I would welcome the Minister's endorsement of that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Patel if he in any sense felt beaten up by me. I absolve my noble friend Lady Wheeler from any involvement in that process. I also apologise to the long-suffering officials in the Government Whips Office. If my robust style is mistaken, they should really see what I am like when I am angry.
I added my name to a number of amendments in the various versions of this group. I also proposed Amendment 305. If the noble Baroness who I believe is replying to this debate is planning to highlight any technical flaws in that amendment, I should point out that I drafted it myself. Therefore, it no doubt does contain a number of technical flaws. But the purpose of the amendment is to assess the feeling within the House and the strength of feeling in the department about the extent to which it is important that HealthWatch England and healthwatch organisations at local level should be independent.
The principle underlying this group of amendments is straightforward—the centrality of the voices of patients and users in the NHS. That voice must be, and must be seen to be, independent of the various provider and regulatory interests. That is what underpins all of the different amendments.
I find it difficult to understand how the Government will oppose the amendments. They keep telling us that the voice of the patient and the user will be central to all these arrangements. They say that that is their intention. But they must be aware, because everybody else is, of the cynicism and doubt that is being expressed around the country about this whole package of NHS changes. Therefore, they should be able to reassure patients and users that their voices will be heard at every level within this complicated restructuring that will take place. That is extremely important.
What is more, it will be important for that voice to be seen to be independent. Members of the public will be concerned about what is happening. They will worry whether their doctors, whom they do not fully understand as being part of commissioning groups, will somehow be making judgments about their care, influenced by financial interests. They will want to be assured that they can go somewhere for proper advice and support, and that that place will genuinely be independent of all of those interests.
A huge expectation is now being placed on local healthwatch organisations. They are expected to provide that independent advice and information, to be able to monitor the nature of the service at local level and to be able to comment on the various changes that are taking place and on the proposals that are coming from the plethora of commissioning groups, senates and goodness knows what else we are going to have. They are going to be there to make recommendations. So, there will be enormous expectations on behalf of the public as to what these groups are going to do. Similarly, the national body, HealthWatch England, will have enormous expectations upon it. That is why it is so important to get these arrangements right. The proposals for HealthWatch England and local healthwatch are an advance on what we have at present in terms of LINks. There is no question about that—they are a step forward. The record of successive Ministers and Governments in terms of patient representation in the NHS is not very good. This is a step forward from where we are at the moment. So, let us try to get it right. Why not deal with what are comparatively small issues in terms of how the system works?
The trouble is that, at the moment, the arrangements that the Government are proposing are flawed in two key respects: first, on the issue of independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has already indicated; and secondly, in terms of the resources available. Let us consider for a moment the position of HealthWatch England as a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission. That might be a very neat way of not increasing the number of quangos by one; it may be that was the sole motivating feature. However, the reality is that it dangerously compromises the independence that I talked about as being so important. Often, HealthWatch England will have to say, on behalf of local healthwatch organisations, that the regulator should be doing something, has failed to do something or has been inadequate in the way that it has done that. In the last few weeks, we have seen the Minister’s colleagues in the Department of Health making quite critical comments about the way in which the CQC has fulfilled its remit. If Ministers are saying that—and Ministers are, after all, the paymasters of the CQC—what is it going to be like for those people whose remit is to raise these issues but are themselves subordinate to that regulatory body? It is going to be a real conflict and a very difficult position for them. The nature of that relationship—the fact that they are a mere sub-committee and are subjected to all of the panoply of arrangements that go with that—is going to be seriously limiting.
I am aware that the CQC is making enormous efforts to try and demonstrate their good faith in all of this. I am sure that the individuals involved have good faith as far as this is concerned. However, we are here considering legislation that will set those arrangements. Once those arrangements are set, the good will of the individuals who may be trying to make it work at the moment may not persist—not because those individuals will change their minds, but because, over time, those individuals will move on and others will take their place. Budgetary and other pressures on the CQC will rise. The feeling that they do not like being criticised by a body that is technically subordinate to them will increase. That is why that arrangement does not work.
There is an even stronger argument as to why local healthwatch organisations should not be subordinate to principal local authorities in their area. The Government’s flaws here are flaws twice over. Not only are they imperilling the independence of local healthwatch organisations by saying that—even though they are supposed to be independent—they are creatures of the local authority, the funds will be provided by the local authority and many of the facilities may well be provided by local authority but, because the funds will not be ring-fenced, it will be far too easy for local authorities to start to apply the screws if they do not like the criticisms that come from it.
A major conflict of interest is being created. HealthWatch cannot be accountable to, and at the same time funded by, local authorities because the bodies which commission and provide the services are the local authorities in many instances. However, the Government are saying that HealthWatch can advise members of the public about those services. How can HealthWatch organisations be funded by the same bodies that are commissioning and providing those services? This is precisely the area where the confidence of members of the public and of individual patients is so important. They have to go for advice to a body which is funded by the people about whom they wish to take advice. That hardly looks independent or satisfactory. If HealthWatch is made accountable to local authorities as the Bill proposes, the public will, frankly, have no confidence in that and all the efforts that the Department of Health and the Government have made to try to create a better structure will be wasted. That resource will be wasted because the public will not have confidence in these arrangements.
There is also a failure to protect the funding. I do not know how many hot coals Ministers in the Department of Health had to crawl over to get £60 million out of the Treasury for HealthWatch. I am not suggesting that the Department for Communities and Local Government is any more evil than any other government department, but if you hand the funding to that department, which then hands it on to individual local authorities without a label saying, “Not only is this money to be used for HealthWatch but it cannot be used for anything else”, my experience as a former council leader tells me that you cannot guarantee that the money will be used for the purpose that you wish.
I spoke earlier about localism and said how wonderful it was that the Government should devolve responsibility for this issue. However, it is not a wonderful example of localism if you expect something to happen, you pass the money on and then you are shocked if the money is not used for that purpose. If you want the money to be used for a particular purpose, you have to label it and ring-fence it. However, the Government will not do that. They say that they cannot do that as it would be inappropriate in the spirit of localism.
I have received numerous e-mails and messages from LINks on this very subject. Their experience of not having ring-fenced budgets this year is salutary. One message states:
“As a LINk our funding was reduced by the local authority by 65 per cent this year”.
Another states:
“I have spent 30 years as a senior business professional and business consultant and it is ludicrous to set an organisation targets to be funded by set criteria and then reduce those funds by 65 per cent. This makes a mockery of the organisation’s ability to carry out its public remit”.
That is what is happening at the moment. What guarantees can the Government give that it will not happen in the future?
There is a technical point here. The Department of Health has presumably secured these funds through the comprehensive spending review. Who will own those funds the next time that the comprehensive spending review is negotiated? Will it be the Department of Health or the Department for Communities and Local Government? If it is the Department for Communities and Local Government, how will it rank given its other priorities which have nothing to do with HealthWatch? If it is the Department of Health, how will it answer the question from the Treasury, “How do you know that this money is being spent in the way that you intend?”. It will not be able to answer that question, as I suspect that the correct answer is that the money will disappear. LINks already have huge concerns about the resources question.
The other element of this concerns what sort of patient representative mechanism we want. Do we want something which is top-down or something which comes from local organisations? The amendment that stands in my name seeks to establish an arrangement whereby local healthwatch organisations have ownership of the national body which speaks in their name. I believe that that is essential. Even if you created HealthWatch England as an independent structure without the problems of it being a tool of the regulator, you will still not get the necessary buy-in at local level unless local organisations feel that they are part of it and have a say in its organisation. I speak as someone who was director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales for 12 years, and I know how important it was for the member organisations to feel that what we were saying as the national body reflected—not to the letter, but reflected—what they felt was important as local organisations. If you do not have that mechanism, if you do not have that process built into the legislation, I am afraid that you will create a gulf between the national body and the local bodies. That is surely unsatisfactory.
The Government’s proposals could make an enormous difference to patient representation in the new NHS, and patient representation is going to be enormously important in the new structure, because I think that many patients will feel disempowered and worried by what is happening. However, those arrangements are flawed unless the Government accept the spirit of the amendments in this group—and unless they accept that HealthWatch, both nationally and locally, should be independent, and that resources should be clearly ring-fenced and clearly identified and cannot be used by bodies that have no interest, necessarily, in patient representation used for other purposes.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 and to a number of other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Harris. I do not want to speak for very long on this issue. I have some inhibition about speaking about this because I do not think that my own party’s record on patient representation was extremely startling. I had to take some of those measures through your Lordships’ House and usually did not get the better of the arguments with the noble Earl on these issues. I accept that the Government have started off pretty well on this issue and that they have a good brand—HealthWatch is quite a good brand. I am an athletics fan, however, and the Government are beginning to look like a 200-metre runner who has moved up to 400 metres but is now starting to run out of steam on this issue in the last 100 metres. What I think has happened is that the money has started to dominate the discussion.
I also recognise here a favourite Department of Health word—hosting. There are two phrases that used to worry me as a Health Minister: “the NHS family”, which was usually an excuse for doing something foolish; and “hosting”. The danger of hosting is that, for what seemed to be perfectly good reasons, you put one organisation in the maw of another organisation whose culture is fundamentally different from the needs of the organisation being hosted. The real danger here is that there is no obvious similarity between a regulator and a patient representative organisation.
I will give the noble Earl just one example where the Government would do well to pause and think. If you are the parent of someone with a learning disability who is in a home which has mistreated and abused them and the regulator has let you down, or you perceive that the regulator has let you down, you are not going to be very pleased to find that the regulator is the very same body that is hosting the national body representing patients. That is a real example, not a phoney example. I think that there could be many such cases—and we will have a debate on Dilnot and social care on Thursday. However, there are some serious problems in the funding and quality of some of our social care institutions. The regulator is going to have a tough time in these areas over the coming years. It is a mistake for HealthWatch England to be hosted, in effect, by the regulator. Given the size of the NHS budget, the Government are spoiling their ship for a ha’porth of tar, to use a corny phrase, by not finding the money to fund this body adequately, so that it can stand on its own two feet and be secure and independent, and so that it can be allowed to be seen to be secure and independent by the patients who will put their trust in it.
I shall end on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about ring-fencing. I can give the noble Earl a good example of where the Government have tried to do the right thing. They tried to put some extra money into social care that would go down to local authorities to improve the volume and quality of social care, but they did not ring-fence it. It was the best part of £1 billion, out of the £2 billion increase in social care funding. We now have a lot of people who thought that that was a jolly good idea. However, as it was not ring-fenced, the Government will not get any credit for it. It has gone into local budgets, but we do not know where. If you talk to any director of adult social services they will tell you that one of the problems was that the money was not ring-fenced, so they cannot reassure the Government that the money has gone to the purposes for which the Government sent it down the conduit to the local authorities. There is a very real danger that the same will happen with the HealthWatch money that will go down to the local level. I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I spoke on this subject at Second Reading, and I want to go back in history for a few minutes. I remember that when the community health councils were closed down, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I felt strongly that the health forums which were put in their place should be independent. If a local healthwatch organisation is linked too closely to its local authority, it will be difficult for it to be able to speak out if it finds that both health and social care facilities are not up to scratch. What happens if they disagree with the CQC? Patients often need help, so an independent body would be much better to help them with their problems. It is vital that HealthWatch is adequately funded to do a useful job, otherwise it will fail. Perhaps I may give an example concerning a rural area. What happens if there are not adequate funds for the payment of members’ travel expenses? That has been found with the local LINks. I hope that the Minister will give this serious consideration.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have listened to the debate, and some powerful arguments have been put forward for an independent HealthWatch England. However, I am not sure that that is the right answer. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he feels that the Bill is setting up the new arrangements, and of course he is right. However, when one is setting up new arrangements, it is a good idea to look at what has happened in the past. Looking back to the confederation of CHCs, one sees that it never actually made an impact. I think that that was probably because the initiative for setting up that body came from the CHCs themselves, and so the confederation had no formal legitimacy, no clout and few resources.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I would not disagree with the point about the resources, but the initiative to set up the association—not a confederation—came from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who was Minister of Health. He announced, in what he assumed would be a very positive fashion, that he wanted to see a national Association of Community Health Councils. However, as he had not spoken to community health councils first, they felt considerable dismay about the setting-up of a national association at the behest of a Minister. The resolution to support the creation of the association was carried—I cannot remember the precise figures—by something like only 107 to 93. I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s argument is flawed.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his history lesson. Perhaps I should not go on to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Perhaps he remembers that organisation, which never quite worked. I think that it did its best, but it failed to influence the Labour Government of the time. Perhaps it was a bit too strident. Maybe it was not canny enough. Maybe it did not build the relationships that are so critical when one is negotiating a change, especially with a big beast like a Government. Of course, the Labour Government closed that one down very hurriedly.
The proposal in the Bill is that HealthWatch England should be a committee of the CQC, as has already been said. There are advantages in that, provided that there are some safeguards in the way that it works. My three amendments seek to achieve those safeguards.
There are advantages in being at the top table, knowing what is going on, and building the necessary relationships to influence policy and practice. The CQC will, of course, have the resources to collect and analyse data on a national scale. Provided that it shares that data generously—and it must do so—it will enable HealthWatch England not to have to build its own infrastructure in order to operate effectively. That will also enable HealthWatch England to have a strategic role in shaping the new NHS. It is very important that it should not just be a sounding board for local issues, but should have a strategic vision as well. The CQC will of course learn of the issues that need addressing through the real experiences of patients, through HealthWatch England, which will be at the table.
We have to understand what both organisations bring to the party. The CQC is the regulator. Its duty is governed by the statutory standards for healthcare and it has the indicators to measure them, as set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. HealthWatch England brings something different: the priorities, the experiences and the views of patients and the public, through local healthwatch organisations. Played right, this combination could be very powerful. It could deliver the accountability that reflects both the priorities of government, derived from the democratic process, which I think of as the theory, and the actual experience of those who depend on health and social services during what may be the most vulnerable time in their lives, which is the reality.
If this combined perspective, to be embedded in regulation, is to work well, it is essential that HealthWatch cannot be dictated to or steered by the CQC. It must speak with a clear, strong, independent voice. This requires two things: first, the appropriate balance of membership within HealthWatch England; and, secondly, the appropriate status for its advice within the functions of the CQC. The status of HealthWatch England as a committee of the CQC may be quite pleasing in its value for money and its legislative simplicity, but it does not guarantee that clear, strong and independent voice. This is the voice of the victims who have been so badly let down by the NHS. It is the voice that has been chronicled so meticulously in the first Francis report on the mid-Staffordshire scandal, the Bristol inquiry, and other reports.
Therefore, my first amendment, Amendment 307A, ensures that the majority of the members of HealthWatch England are not also members of the CQC. This avoids the advice of HealthWatch England being biased through corporate responsibility with the CQC. My second amendment, Amendment 308A, ensures that the majority of the membership of HealthWatch England is elected from the members of local healthwatch organisations. This permits the introduction through regulation of provisions to ensure that elections cover local healthwatch organisations from across the country, and that representatives are elected through due process for an appropriate term and with appropriate accountability. We know that this works very well. We have seen regional elections to national bodies in the voluntary sector and even outside it, from student unions, to national professional associations, to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The National Association of LINks Members recently conducted elections from its regions which were overseen externally and the process proved to be satisfactory.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I, too, tabled amendments in this group. They are aimed at providing HealthWatch with the independence and resources that it requires to genuinely represent the patients and users of health and social care services. Many noble Lords will understand that I am not a health service expert. However, when the White Paper proposing these changes came out, I still had some responsibility for consumer affairs generally as chair of Consumer Focus. Health service professionals do not like to regard their patients as consumers—I am quite happy to call them patients, users or clients—but we are moving the users of health services to a situation closer to that of consumers in other markets.
If we do not have separate consumer representation that reflects at both local and national level the concerns and interests of those consumers, we will not improve the service in the interests of users and patients. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, tabled amendments to strengthen the position of the regulator that go a considerable way towards making sure that there is some recognition of independence. However, the role of patient representation is entirely different from that of the regulator. Inevitably there will be conflict.
I turn to other sectors. When I was the Minister responsible, we took the Consumer Council for Water out of Ofwat because there was a conflict. We took out Passenger Focus from what became the Office of Rail Regulation because there was a conflict. We always kept Energywatch and then Consumer Focus separate from Ofgem. There was tension in all those areas, but that tension is more easily resolved if there is independence, ring-fenced funding and an ability to relate directly to the consumers of those sectors independently of the regulator. There is not a huge amount of difference in the health service, although obviously there are some esoteric aspects to it. The question of price and the exchange of money at the point of service does not arise in the same way, but questions about much of the rest of customer service absolutely do arise. Indeed, the main complaints about the health service are related to customer service and are almost equivalent to those made in many private and public sector markets.
I do not accept that a role within a regulator is sufficient to represent the interests of patients and users. Many of the propositions that are before noble Lords are worthy of the Government’s consideration. My own proposals are based very much on the construction of Consumer Focus, and in that sense they are not my own work but the work of the parliamentary counsel at the time. They are in no way superior to my noble friend Lord Harris’s jottings. If we were to look at them all together I am sure that those of us who are arguing for independence could come up with a clear alternative, but it would be much better if the Government themselves recognised the strength of argument in this area and came up with their own proposition between now and Report. They need to make it fit with the total pattern. The Government are the only people who can make a commitment to resources and to genuine independence. After the strength of argument that has come up in this debate, and with the views from LINks and from some of the patient organisations for particular conditions and diseases that the present proposals inadequately reflect, I hope that the Government will think again.
My last point is that, in addition to independence and to separate and clear resources free from the provider and the regulator, the Government need to look at powers, because a genuinely effective consumer, user and patient organisation that does not have the power to request from the providers, and in this case the commissioners, information on how they are conducting their affairs is always at a disadvantage. In other sectors there are clear powers for the consumer organisation. In this sector I am sure that those powers are also necessary for the whole range of bodies which the new configuration of the health service will have as a result of this Bill.
I hope that the Government think about this debate and come up with their own proposals. In the mean time I support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others who have spoken in the debate.
Lord Walton of Detchant
I have a short but, I believe, relevant question for the Minister. As he is aware, a medical charity called HealthWatch has existed for some years. I have the honour to be a patron of it. Every quarter it produces incisive commentaries on health matters that are not always totally in line with government policy. Has the department been able to work out some kind of mechanism by which any potential confusion in the public mind between the charity and this body, which is to be created under this Bill, can be avoided?
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about her safeguarding amendments, which are very interesting. Would she not also put down a safeguarding amendment about the funds? Jobs will not be able to be done unless funds are safeguarded.
Baroness Cumberlege
I will think about that. Having dealt with the Treasury in the past, I know how difficult it is to get anything ring-fenced. However, the noble Baroness’s suggestion is very interesting and I will take it on board.
We have examples of other consumer groups being very effective within their parent organisation. I think in particular of NICE, which has done a lot to get views on its work from the general public. The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence has also done that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am sorry to intervene again on the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It is probably because we know each other too well that I feel able to interrupt at regular intervals. The examples she has just cited are examples of bodies that are there specifically to advise the organisation concerned. The consumer panels that NICE set up are about advising NICE about particular issues in terms of clinical effectiveness and what patients in that area are concerned about. They are not representing patients more generally and they are certainly not representing patients in terms of the statutory obligations of NICE and where there might be a disagreement about what NICE is doing. They are there to inform. That is the distinction.
Lord Patel
In response to the amount of funding, as I understand it—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will correct me if I am wrong—the Bill suggests that the funding for HealthWatch England will be a grant in aid provided by the department to the CQC.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, they say that too many cooks spoil the broth, but I think this is an occasion where that probably has not happened. Many hands might make light work. I ask the Minister to take these amendments away because there is an awful lot of good to be found in each of them, but not in each together, as it were.
Amendment 318C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, inserts a new clause and subsection (2)(a) of the new clause is about complaints. It is a nice idea that complaints could be taken to HealthWatch England. Complaints are a big issue to which we will be returning on Amendment 108.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the relationship between local and national healthwatches. It is critical. We would support the election of local healthwatch representatives to the national body.
Finally, on independence and finance, I believe very strongly that it is very difficult to criticise and challenge an organisation if you sit within it. I understand the point about the benefits, but if you are local, and you sit within your local health authority or nationally you sit within the CQC, generally the feeling that you are monitoring the organisation that is your host is never a good place to start. Similarly, I, too, have had letters from people who were CHIPs and then LINks about budgets being not just cut a little bit but absolutely hacked away. I would be really uncomfortable if, for example, locally the healthwatch was going to be located within the principal local authority that held the budget. We have had it already today. Intentions will be good and then somebody will come along and say, “We really need a bit more just for this”. It will happen in a meeting where they are not present and, all of a sudden, there will be another slice taken. We have seen it before with lots of other things. You could look at it from a negative point of view and say these are like curate’s eggs and bad in parts or good in parts, but I think too many cooks will not spoil this broth. Many hands will make light work. I ask my noble friend to take this away and have a look at it.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He is forgiven for being subject to the beatings of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. When I made my maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave me a very interesting and less than usual tribute. Noble Lords will see that we have a slight history.
Baroness Northover
As the noble Lord points out, I stood against him as a paper candidate—a non-serious candidate. When I went up to congratulate him on winning by about 2,000 votes to my 20 or whatever it was, I was given a blasting in relation to the successful campaign of one of my colleagues. That apart, I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I am very happy to discuss these amendments wherever they come in the Bill. However, I would point out that these amendments are about HealthWatch England and we will return to local healthwatch organisations later on. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will not be here at that point so has flagged up some issues which I hope to be able to address. But noble Lords may wish to be aware that we will be coming back to this in relation to the local aspects.
This has been yet another high-quality debate and a range of different perspectives have been expressed. One of the things that has come through is the concern about trying to make sure that the NHS is genuinely patient-centred. All too often, patients are expected to fit around services, rather than the other way around, and that is what we are seeking to tackle here. Years back, I was a very junior spokesperson on health for the Lib Dems and then I moved to international development. I remember the debates on this issue, in particular on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill in 2002. It is one of the things that I asked about when seeking a briefing. Various noble Lords have referred to what has happened over the years. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in 2002 when he put forward proposals to involve patients. After they had gone back and forth and around and about and there had been much discussion, he described his position as being,
“as good as it gets”.—[Official Report, 13/6/02; col. 419.]
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that they now had a system,
“which will act robustly in the interests of the public and patients”.—[Official Report, 13/6/02; col. 430.]
I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, recognises that we are trying to improve on things.
Baroness Northover
Then there were the patient forums of 2004. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that these were,
“the cornerstone of the arrangements we have put in place to create opportunities for patients and the public to influence health services”.—[Official Report, 5/7/04; col. 516.]
In 2007, we moved on to LINks. We have abandoned the commission that was at the centre—the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to this—because it was centralising, bureaucratic and absorbed money that was supposed to be devolved. I have the Health Select Committee report criticising that commission.
As others have said, there is a history of trying to move this forward and trying to ensure that there is better patient and public involvement. I welcome what various noble Lords have said about the improvements in the Bill. We are trying to learn from that history and move it on, although I hear what people say that we possibly have not got it as far as they people wish.
The Government are seeking a fundamental shift. The aim of HealthWatch England is to help orientate the NHS first and foremost around the patient. Healthwatch, at both local and national levels, aims to strengthen the ability of service users and other members of the public to shape and improve health and social care. The role that Healthwatch England will play is crucial. Its aim is to provide leadership, support and advice to local healthwatch organisations and to make them more effective. I looked at the LINks reports and although they are welcome, anyone can see that there is much more that can be done. They do not reflect the whole range of patient voices and the kind of responsiveness you might wish to see in the health service, which is why it is such a challenge.
HealthWatch England will also provide information and advice about the views of patients, the public and local healthwatch to the key players in the NHS and social care—the Secretary for State, the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, English local authorities and the Care Quality Commission. At present there is no statutory body with either of these roles. Therefore, I am sure we can all agree that this represents a step forward. As noble Lords have said, the HealthWatch England committee will be a committee of the CQC, with a chair who we intend will be a non-executive director of the CQC. Part of this debate has focused on whether this is the appropriate organisational form for HealthWatch England: whether, in this form, it can sufficiently and independently serve the interests of patients and the public and whether it will have the status it needs to achieve this. I have listened to these concerns and I fully agree that this area is too important to get wrong. We are interested in change that works and this Government believe that setting up HealthWatch England within the CQC is the best way to achieve this aim.
I shall explain the reasoning behind this. First, there are key synergies to exploit here. To be effective, HealthWatch England is going to need extensive capabilities which the commission that existed before clearly did not have. It will need clout, which clearly that commission did not have. Being part of the CQC will enable it to have both of these. HealthWatch England will be able to draw on the infrastructure and support from the CQC to deliver its work to a high standard. It will have easy access to the CQC’s information sources, which have been referred to, enabling it to develop a deeper understanding of how health and social care organisations are functioning or where there are problems where the views of people may have made a difference. Being part of one of the big national bodies will, we hope, give HealthWatch England a real profile, and one we feel would be hard to generate if it was a new, separate body—and there is the history that we know about. Operating from within the CQC should enable HealthWatch England to punch considerably above its weight.
Secondly, it will enable the voice of patients to have a real influence on the regulatory work of the CQC. Close working and communication between HealthWatch England and the CQC opens up the possibility of having the patient voice hardwired into the work of the commission. It is not just a matter of looking at HealthWatch England but seeking to ensure that it really has a positive effect.
Lord Warner
Can the Minister give the House any information that the department has on the name recognition of the Care Quality Commission which would deliver the kind of profile for HealthWatch that she is claiming for it?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is very concerned that HealthWatch itself is a name that is going to be far too easily recognised and obliterate his charity. This is HealthWatch. The fact that it is in that relationship with the CQC does not obviate that. I would turn it back to the noble Lord and ask him who might recognise any of those predecessor organisations over the past 10 years and whether there was ever wide recognition of those.
Lord Warner
That was not my question. The noble Baroness is arguing that HealthWatch would actually benefit from being hosted by or being part of the Care Quality Commission because it would be a powerful national body. I was asking the noble Baroness what the name recognition of that powerful national body was that would produce benefits for HealthWatch.
Baroness Northover
At the moment the CQC is relatively well known because its reports are in the press fairly frequently. The reports of the investigations that it has been undertaking have caused considerable concern. I cannot give the noble Lord a scientific response based upon polling as to the recognition of the CQC, but I would guess that it is somewhat higher than some of the organisations representing the patient voice that have been there before. When patients went into hospital and had concerns about various things, did those organisations spring to the forefront of their minds? Possibly not.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I too have listened to this extremely important debate with a great deal of interest. I am slightly losing the thread of the Minister’s argument. When the Minister started, she was saying that the debate was about how we put patients at the centre of the NHS. However, I think that the debate has been about whether or not HealthWatch England should be independent. What the Minister is saying is very interesting, and I do not want to interrupt her for too long. I want to understand what the benefits to HealthWatch England are of being enclosed within or subordinate to another organisation. If we want to have a HealthWatch England that is out there punching above its weight and really taking patient interests to the Secretary of State and the Commissioning Board, it would seem to have a much better opportunity to be heard, recognised and understood as an independent organisation that is not subordinate. Why do the Government think it is better to wrap it up inside another organisation which is very different in character, and make it dependent and subordinate to that organisation? How will that help it to fulfil its objective?
Baroness Northover
I am sorry that I am not putting this clearly. One of the major points about this is for HealthWatch England to be in a place where it can have a direct effect upon organisations like the CQC. We know from history that even when you have a national organisation, it does not necessarily mean that it has the effect that one would wish; the noble Baroness will know that all too well. Various parts of this organisation have various obligations built in to listen to HealthWatch, which we hope will help, but because it is there as part of CQC there is an obvious relationship, because CQC is the organisation that goes in and regulates the institutions that deliver care. The CQC regulates; the various institutions and other bodies provide the care. HealthWatch England is trying to draw out the patient’s voice in this, and make sure that it is heard loud and clear.
Fancy this; I have just been given a quote from the chief executive of National Voices, Jeremy Taylor, who says that he is,
“not sure that it matters where HealthWatch England sits. What matters is whether it has clout, credibility, independence and sufficient resources. One could have a big debate about whether it should sit as a separate body or as part of the CQC. Colleagues may have different views. My view and the view expressed in the forum is that HealthWatch England will be an important part of the architecture for the patient voice, so we should welcome it.”––[Official Report, Commons, Health and Social Care Bill Committee, 28/6/11; col. 67.]
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, we have referred to “patients” all the time, and I understood that HealthWatch was going to be public and patients. The Care Quality Commission looks at complaints. There is a culture issue here. The independence of HealthWatch is vital, because we are talking about the future as well as the present. My experience over the years, when we have been looking at new services, is to have the public and patient representation coming forward with ideas—it should not be governed by a health authority or anyone else, but be independent—and reporting back to the body that asks the question. We are going a little off-beam in terms of the Care Quality Commission, which would be culturally oppressive to any organisation that is set up to look to the future.
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness is quite right that this is patients and public. One of our concerns about some of these amendments which refer only to patients is because the whole of the public are potentially patients, or related to or caring for patients and so on. It therefore does have to be defined widely, and she is right that we are looking to the future. I am not sure that I would share her view as to the CQC, which indeed needs to help play its part in driving up quality, which underpins much in the Bill.
Maybe I can carry on and address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. The Bill preserves a clear distinction between the CQC and HealthWatch England. Although HealthWatch England will be established as a statutory committee of the CQC, it will be solely responsible for setting the direction of its own work and exercising particular functions. This will ensure that HealthWatch England targets issues and gathers evidence from the public to base its national advice on service standards and improvements. HealthWatch England will maintain its independent role by presenting the collective patient and public voice to the Secretary of State and to the relevant bodies.
Lord Patel
I did not have in mind the scientific meaning of “research”. This is research of what is going on in individual hospitals. I use the example of Mid Staffordshire, where it was the research following initial incidents that made everybody aware of the extent to which bad practices were going on. That is the kind of research that local healthwatch should be involved in.
Baroness Northover
I take on board what the noble Lord says, and indeed he is absolutely right. There are various ways in which such problems should be picked up, but it is exceedingly important that that happens, and we certainly hope that local healthwatch will be part of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, talked about engagement with stakeholders. I can assure her that there is ongoing engagement with stakeholders through a HealthWatch advisory group. The National Association of LINks Members and others are members of this group, and there are others. The noble Baroness also asked about the funding for transition. The Government continue to make funding available to LINks— £27 million during the transition—and as part of the HealthWatch development programme we will make £3.2 million available for start-up costs for local healthwatch organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about conflicts between the CQC and HealthWatch England. We disagree that the Bill does not already provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the independence of HealthWatch England within the CQC. Obviously, in extreme cases, the Secretary of State has the ability to intervene if HealthWatch England is significantly failing. However, both the CQC and HealthWatch England have responsibilities that they must deliver.
The noble Lord also spoke about the relationship between LINks and local authorities, and expressed some concern about that. LINks have been funded by the local authorities and it is right that so too will the local healthwatch. The relationship of local health authorities and LINks overall has been a successful one—although I take the point that he makes—that has encouraged collaborative working between LINk and the local authority. The Government believe that if local healthwatch organisations are to play a full part in their local communities, it is appropriate for them to be accountable to directly elected local bodies that are better able to assess the needs of the local population. It would not be appropriate for them to be funded nationally, but I hear what the noble Lord said.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege spoke strongly in support of many of these developments from her knowledge of the history of the past few years. She showed how we are trying to build on the experience of previous Governments to take this forward. However, she will not be surprised to know that I have some concerns about some of her amendments. Her Amendments 307A and 308A would prescribe certain aspects of the membership of the HealthWatch England committee. For example, Amendment 307A proposes that:
“The majority of the members of the Healthwatch England committee shall not be members of the Commission”.
The debate that we have just had illustrates why this is important. Certainly, we have sympathy with that point of view. However, we do not think that it should be in the Bill. It is best to put these in regulations, which would enable flexibility. Clearly, rules about the membership and procedure need to be consulted on and that will be taken forward when we engage over those regulations.
I told myself that we would write to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about his organisation. However, it turns out that I am aware of a number of other organisations that use the name HealthWatch. The Government’s proposals mean that the HealthWatch we envisage will be unique as the champion of the patient and the public voice. I am not sure whether that totally answers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Perhaps I had better write to him after all.
My noble friend Lady Jolly flagged up concerns about complaints. Perhaps I may reiterate that HealthWatch England’s role is that of a national champion of the consumer voice. Its purpose will be to bring that voice to the attention of regulators and others. Giving HealthWatch England powers of investigation of complaints could compromise its primary role in that regard. One of the developments introduced by the previous Government was to bring in a statutory framework for an investigation of NHS and adult social care complaints. It remains the Government’s view that complaints are best dealt with in the existing framework and initially at the local level. This provides a better opportunity for local organisations to learn from their mistakes and to improve services as a result. Where resolution is not possible locally a complainant is able to complain further to the Health Service Commissioner, the ombudsman or the local government ombudsman, as appropriate. The ombudsman’s functions of investigation are statutory. Therefore, we see no reason to duplicate. The structure set in place by the previous Government will stay in place and acts in that way.
As ever in this House there is a wide range of experience, particularly perhaps in this instance on what has not worked in the past. It is a great challenge to enlist patients and the public in making sure that standards are driven up. We believe that devolving to the local level with clinicians and patients more in the driving seat should help. I welcome the support of noble Lords who feel that these changes are a move forward, but I hear them when they say that there are areas that still need to be addressed. For that reason, we would certainly like to continue discussions with those who wish to feed in on this issue in order to make it as good as we can: namely, a system that more effectively brings to bear the voice of patients and the public, which has so far proved to be a difficult challenge not only to the previous Government but to Governments before that.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I was hoping that at the end the noble Baroness would be able to say more strongly how the Government intend to take forward today’s debate, but I am afraid that she did not do that, which is a pity. There was strong support for HealthWatch England and local healthwatch to have more independence. Her argument about a synergy between the CQC and HealthWatch England is not absolutely correct. Yes, there is a degree of synergy, but not in all areas, including: commissioning, as mentioned by the Minister; community care, where the CQC is not involved; advice to the Secretary of State on the mandate; and social care as it develops to more home-based care where the CQC will not be involved. HealthWatch England has a much wider remit than the CQC.
I have a rule in life never to oppose anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, says or does and I will not break that rule now. She is always well researched and communicates her research well, but I have to say that her well researched argument supports the Government more and I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, did not feel able to accept some of her amendments. None the less, it is a halfway house that would give more independence to HealthWatch England within the CQC. If we are serious about giving HealthWatch England independence, it should be truly independent. It should have its own powerful voice for the public and patients. It should not be answerable to another body that will control it, fund it and employ its members. That is the great weakness.
The outside voice of the people involved in this work is strong. They would like to test their work in an independent way. Previously, they have failed because they have not been given that independence. Let us be serious about giving a strong voice to the public and patients. Let us give them independence and see whether they can stand up to the challenge.
There was a lot of support today but I am willing to continue talking, particularly with the outside organisations, if that commitment can be made by the Government. We will always have an opportunity to come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) If, within 60 parliamentary days of the mandate having been laid—
(a) either House of Parliament makes a recommendation with regard to the proposal, or(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal,the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the resolution or recommendations.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the debate on the first group was instructive on the relationship between Parliament, the Secretary of State and the mandate that the Secretary of State sets for the NHS Commissioning Board. In our final exchange the noble Earl said that he was fearful of Parliament micromanaging the National Health Service. My fear is that that is shorthand for saying that Parliament may be told that it will no longer be able to ask detailed questions about the NHS because it is covered in the mandate. Whatever it may be, the mandate assumes critical importance since it lays out the objectives set for the NHS Commissioning Board by the Secretary of State. My amendment is not about micromanagement, it is about proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the Secretary of State has decided, and it sets out a well tried procedure. The final decision on the mandate will remain with the Secretary of State, but it will allow Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
“(2) In discharging its duty under this section the Board shall establish an independent panel to formulate minimum standards of—
(a) financial,(b) performance, and(c) asset,management information to be included in the audited accounts for all bodies to which this subsection applies.(3) Subsection (2) applies to all bodies commissioning or providing NHS services under annual contracts of at least £500,000.
(4) The independent panel shall be established—
(a) within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and(b) jointly with Monitor on a basis agreed by the National Audit Office.(5) The standards formulated by the panel shall be kept under review by the Board and Monitor and, in doing so, they will pay particular regard to the extent to which the standards have ensured levels of public accountability similar to those required of bodies providing comparable services.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, I regard this amendment as one of the most important building blocks in the Bill, although I have to confess that I am not sure that it will attract the same enthusiasm from the Government or their Civil Service advisers. The amendment is based on my own experience as a Minister, especially when dealing with the financial meltdown of the NHS in 2005-06—which I have recorded for posterity in a book that I have written on the subject. Since I believe that the NHS is heading for another financial meltdown, Ministers, especially in the Treasury, might give some serious thought to the proposal in Amendment 102.
There is a very good book about the history of the Audit Commission called Follow the Money. I think that we should do a bit more following of the money so far as the NHS is concerned, and not simply rely on things like outcomes frameworks. At the core of this amendment is the rather simple idea that there should be a minimum set of standardised management accounts covering finance, performance and asset use, applying to all bodies providing NHS services that spend more than £500,000 a year. I have put that fairly arbitrary figure in the amendment so that bodies which are relatively modest spenders are not brought into these requirements. It is a matter for negotiation whether that amount is the right one to set. However, with the bigger, higher spending bodies, we need greater standardisation of management accounts because we need to know more than we know now. At present, we cannot easily compare the performance of similar bodies in terms of how they spend our money, how this expenditure relates to what they produce, the value for money they give and how well they use public assets.
It has often been forgotten, under successive Governments, that the NHS is, in effect, a major landowner and user of public buildings. The real estate footprint of the NHS is far too large for the buildings on it and the use that is made of them, and I will give a little data later in my remarks. There is, at present, little rigorous assessment of whether the NHS holds on to land unnecessarily, how much of its accommodation and equipment is used well or intensively, or how much of the buildings or land is left vacant. Work done in the London SHA, after my time as a Minister, shows how scandalously poorly the NHS uses land and buildings. There is no reason to believe that the situation is different in other parts of the country. I am happy to give the Minister and his boss chapter and verse outside this debate. However, in a nutshell, in non-foundation trust sites in London, only some 18 per cent of NHS land was built on; another 18 per cent was underutilised; and some 25 per cent of the buildings were functionally unsuitable for the purpose for which they were used. I have given you a snapshot of London two or three years ago, but it is probably not much different now.
Although we have a great deal of data on the performance of acute hospitals, much of it cannot be related to expenditure because service line accounting—in the jargon—is still not used in most hospitals, especially outside the foundation trust sector. However, acute hospitals are a positive treasure chest of performance data compared with community health services, mental health services and primary care, where any relationship between what they spend and what they deliver is more conspicuous by its absence. Any public company which tried to run its affairs with the same financial performance or asset data as the NHS does would be insolvent very quickly. We should take the opportunity of this Bill to do something about moving to some standardised management accounts for all but the smallest providers.
If this amendment is passed and this requirement is put into the Bill, it would improve commissioning, choice and competition. Without the data that would be produced by implementing the amendment, it is very difficult to secure effective commissioning, effective choice and effective competition. One simply would not have the data to compare on a standardised basis the performance of many of the bodies involved.
I recognise that some of your Lordships do not favour competition. It is certainly easy to resist competition in the NHS if it remains a largely data-free zone in terms of finance and performance. Good commissioning and patient choice become very difficult to deliver if one does not have that information on a standardised basis.
I hope that the Government are prepared to give proper consideration to this longstanding problem. I do not regard this as a party-political issue; this is all about good governance and running the NHS more effectively on behalf of those who are funding it. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say something about the proposals with regard to the accounts and financial statements made by CCGs, which will obviously depend a great deal on the guidance from the board.
I am concerned that a number of clinical commissioning groups without any great knowledge of how to deal with audit and financial problems will emerge. You could quite quickly see a commissioning group getting into difficulties, not because it was not performing well but because it had very little awareness of requirements relating to information on its conduct in relation to assets and finances that was needed to establish its standing as a proper clinical commissioning group. I am concerned because there is already some evidence of clinical commissioning groups seeming rather unclear about the accounting standards that they have to live by. It is important that the board makes very clear indeed what its expectations are and that it involves, as the amendment would require, the National Audit Office, which will become—and in some ways is already—a fundamental arbiter on the quality and standards of accounting practices.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment carefully and that the Minister will let us know what the Government’s intentions are with regard to setting out the standards that they expect from clinical commissioning groups and that the board should lay down. The Bill is currently uncommunicative on the subject.
The whole process of procuring the pharmaceutical and other products that a commissioning group will need is always problematic. It is crucial that what is required is clearly set out, and that there is an indication under which we can compare one clinical commissioning group with another.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I should like to probe the amendment a little further because I think that it has a lot of merit, especially when one considers the PFI arrangements that have so destroyed the financial situation within the NHS.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the accountability of the body. As I understand it, it is to be independent. I presume that he means independent in its membership as well as the way in which it works. I wonder where that accountability lies, whether there is a relationship with the business plan of the Commissioning Board and how the noble Lord sees the body working. Will the panel run for years and years, or will it exist just to set the standards at the beginning? Perhaps we could have a fuller picture.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am seeking to set up something that would function in the early years of the national Commissioning Board. It would be independent in the sense that I did not want it to be dominated by NHS finance people. I want it to be a broader group of people than just those who have worked in the NHS. There is a tendency on the part of the NHS to think of itself as unique, special and different from other businesses, whereas it is a business which needs some business systems in it.
I am not someone who wants to keep bodies going in perpetuity. I am certainly open to negotiation on how long this one exists. I feel more strongly about the National Audit Office keeping an eye on this area. The national Commissioning Board needs some outside help to get this started, particularly in asset management, which is a long neglected area in the NHS, as I think the noble Baroness knows.
Some of the problems with PFI which she mentioned arise from the fact that the NHS has not had a track record of looking after its assets. It does not see them in the terms that a more commercial organisation would do. Many of the things that have gone wrong with PFI are not to do with there being anything inherently wrong with it, because it delivered a lot more hospitals more quickly and effectively than previous public procurement systems. What went wrong was the hubris in the NHS in many parts of the country about its ability to build a Taj Mahal district general hospital with some very dodgy income/revenue flows spread over time, most of the contracts being for 30 years. If one looks at the quality of some of the financial management in the NHS, it is not surprising that it could not do a very good job, even with some outside help, of getting a realistic idea of the revenue that it was likely to generate over 25 to 30 years to fund those projects.
Lord Owen
My Lords, I had not expected to intervene in this debate, but some of the things that I want to say may fit more naturally under this issue. The idea of having a standardised method of comparison right across the National Health Service is a very good one and it has merit if it comes initially from an independent group.
The Government have a special responsibility here, because, very soon after taking office, they encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Green, to look at all these areas, of which land and asset management was a very important part. We all know that this has not been coherently done in the past and that there are substantial land assets throughout the NHS.
As we go to smaller and more fragmented units, it is even more important that there is some structure which looks at land management across the board; otherwise it will be seen in a very narrow context. There may be a sale of some land asset which might quite appropriately have been offered to a neighbouring organisation, whether it is a commissioning group or a foundation hospital. The proposed body would cover all aspects, not just commissioning groups but foundation hospitals as well, and so I am very attracted to it.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Green, said that not only did government not utilise the efficiencies of having an overall look at land management but also that it had no coherent way of achieving its procurement gains. Any large organisation looks across these areas and maximises the advantages that are available. Procurement has not been done very well in the National Health Service, so there is room for improvement whatever structure is implemented. In the past, regional health authorities had procurement functions and were able to negotiate substantially improved contracts because of the size of the procurement agency. I do not quite know what is going to happen in the procurement field. I therefore put the matter to the Minister so that he can perhaps indicate where he thinks it would be appropriate to raise the issue of procurement in future. Again, I say that the work needs to be done by independent people. That was the advantage of the Green report: he got his people from many different fields and focused on government as a whole. He did not look very closely at the NHS, but there is merit on both these questions of land and procurement in seeing whether we can achieve some economies of scale and in taking a fresh and independent look, which we have not had for some time.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I recognise the problem that has been described so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but I wonder whether he is not being a little pessimistic about the possibilities of the architecture providing the right framework to do what he wants to do. If we look at the role of the economic regulator, it must, as it has under the more restricted role of Monitor, include a very serious analysis of how financial management is happening in provider trusts, or foundation trusts, and has led to the growth of the service level management system, which for the first time has given people an idea about which services are making money, which are losing money, which are loss leaders and so on.
These are terrible terms when one is talking about human services and I do not like them. Nevertheless they are business terms and we understand what they mean in this context. They have also led to a much more fundamental understanding of the capital assets of each foundation trust. It has led to better use of capital assets at the moment, but that is largely because at a time of massive growth people do not look to make best use of their capital assets. At a time when money is shrinking or staying the same, as it will be over possibly the next 10 years or more, people will be looking to use their capital assets more effectively.
We must look to the economic regulator to encourage the sort of use of assets that we have so often wanted to encourage in the younger Monitor—to use those assets more effectively and to ensure that we can look across the totality of both community and acute hospital providers at how entrants into the system are using their assets. That would be possible under the new Monitor. I am not sure that we should set up another body to do that although I can see it might have a short term job to make sure that everybody is using the same monitoring mechanisms and is putting in the same sort of systems of financial accounting. With the new architecture we should be able to do that through Monitor.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I should like to respond briefly to the noble Baroness. There is nothing in the amendment that would stop this information being given to Monitor. If people want to amend the amendment in terms of Monitor as the customer for it, I do not feel strongly about that. I have put it under the national Commissioning Board because one of the things it will be doing is, I suspect, giving guidance to clinical commissioning groups on the nature of contracts. One of the requirements that can be used to drive change in this area is contractual requirements on people in terms of the standardisation of accounts. I saw the national Commissioning Board as likely to be able to deliver through this independent panel—which can be as short lived as one wants—the kind of changes that we need.
I want to emphasise to the House that the financial situation in the NHS is serious and will get really serious over the next few years. We need to improve very rapidly the quality of the financial management accounting systems in the NHS. That is a separate issue from the assets and procurement issue, to which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has very ably drawn attention, because it is another long-standing problem. The standardisation of management accounts is an urgent issue for the NHS in the brave new world that it is going into, particularly with the large increase in the number of new organisations that are going to start for the first time to handle big sums of money without much clarity about how they are supposed to account for it.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I believe it would be helpful to the Committee, even if one leaves aside the crucial role of Monitor with its new, major responsibilities, if the Minister could let us know what kind of administrative support, and in particular what kind of financial management support, Sir David Nicholson and his staff in the national Commissioning Board will have. Can he give us any information about that?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I am not sure whether my intervention will complicate the debate further but I very much support the sentiments behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The idea of standardised management accounts could be very helpful. One of the questions I invite the Minister to address is connected to my concerns about how we ensure that the NHS as an environment for research and innovation and as an engine for our economy is properly promoted and understood. Can the Minister comment on what the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility might be in looking at the NHS spend—the billions of pounds that go into the NHS—and whether there is a role for the Office for Budget Responsibility in looking at how the economy is benefiting from the investment that we make as a country in the NHS.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment. I should like to start with the question about the scale of the financial challenge. As my noble friend suggested, the amount of money that has got to be taken out of the NHS through efficiency in the next four years is considerable. The indications are that while in the current financial year there will be some parts of the NHS that really struggle, by and large the service is going to get through. However, years two, three and four are going to be much more fundamental challenges. The need for the NHS to use its assets as effectively as possible, to get on with reconfiguration of services, and for all groups involved in the NHS to buy into that kind of change, is going to be essential. The more comparative information that can be provided the better, which is where I hope the Minister will be responsive to my noble friend.
The noble Lord Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned procurement. I should wear a hat as president of the Health Care Supply Association, and say that he is right to identify procurement as a potential area of much greater efficiency in the future. However, the Minister will know that two recent reports from the Public Accounts Committee have raised concerns about procurement and really are inviting the Minister in particular and the department specifically to take on a much greater leadership role in ensuring—it is rather like the Green report suggested—that the NHS makes the most of its potential buying power. I ask the Minister how, in the devolved structure that the Government are enunciating, we can ensure that on issues such as the use of our assets and procurement we still act as one national service making the most of our buying power? Unless we do that, there are going to be continuous PAC reports looking at the problem of national direction.
Finally, I endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. What about clinical commissioning groups? The Bill is silent on how CCGs are to be accountable. One way would be the publication of comparative performance of how they use their resources—the more comparative performance, the better. I should also like to ask the Minister about primary medical services. As we know, this has always been a difficult area. We have had various efforts through the GP contract to have much more of a performance culture. I cannot say that has been uniformly successful. However, in these days of stringency, I do not think we can get away with that any longer. It would be good to hear how we can extend the whole concept of efficiency performance measurement into an area of the health service, such as GPs themselves, where I am sure there is much more efficiency to be gained.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I should probably say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I am not convinced by the amendment. That is not because I do not believe that the issues that he has raised are important—I certainly do. Good governance is absolutely dependent on having good data and on the financial control that that data enable the board of directors to exercise. It is very much about ensuring throughout the health service that the QIPP agenda is pursued effectively. The QIPP agenda is all about ensuring the more efficient and effective use of money. This could not be a more salient topic at the moment.
However, Amendment 102, which the noble Lord has proposed, would in my view introduce a new layer of bureaucracy. I hope to show that it is not required. My main reason for saying that is that accounting and disclosure requirements for the Department of Health and all NHS bodies are ultimately set by the Treasury. These are already based on independent advice.
I am conscious that that is rather a condensed answer, so, if I may, I should like to go into a little detail as to how this will work. Paragraph 15 of the new Schedule A1 to the NHS Act, inserted by Schedule 1 to the Bill, enables the Secretary of State, with the agreement of the Treasury, to specify the form and content of the board’s accounts and the methods and principles to be applied in their preparation. The Bill places an obligation on the board to produce annual accounts, as well as in-year accounts covering shorter periods if necessary.
In addition, the Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to require such other information as is considered necessary for the purpose of exercising his functions in relation to the health service. This is what one might term management information—data required by those controlling funding or setting policy alongside the financial returns in order to provide an accurate picture of issues such as staffing levels.
For clinical commissioning groups, it is the NHS Commissioning Board that sets the accounting and reporting requirements. It will do so in a way that is consistent with requirements set by the Secretary of State, and approved by the Treasury for the purposes of consolidation.
My noble friend Lady Williams expressed the fear that CCGs may not be well equipped to handle that kind of reporting. The board will set the accounting and reporting requirements for CCGs, as I indicated. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 1A to the NHS Act 2006, inserted by Schedule 2 to the Bill, allows the board, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to give directions to CCGs as to the methods and principles of accounting which they must use and the form and content of their accounts. That will provide a means whereby much greater control can be had over the form, content and consistency of those accounts.
These provisions are mirrored in relation to NHS foundation trusts, with Monitor or the Secretary of State specifying the form and content of the trusts' accounts, again with Treasury agreement.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Before the Minister sits down, will he say why, if he feels that other accounts of public money should be open, general practitioners’ accounts of public money should not be open within the practice? This is public money that they will be receiving.
Earl Howe
Practices will be accountable for the money that they receive to commission services, as will CCGs. But it is another matter to say that independent private individuals should lay open what are effectively their tax returns to the general public. That is the sensitivity there.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
This is not about GPs’ private incomes and tax returns. This is about the finances of the business, which is their practice partnership, and within that the way in which that money is being spent on business, just as other business accounts have to be open and filed.
Lord Warner
I do not particularly want to intervene about GPs. I can understand to some extent what the noble Earl is saying about them. I am more concerned that the noble Earl has given us a lot of information about powers in the Bill for people to do things. I recognise only too well official defence in depth of the current status quo. I have had many a brief along those lines in my time, so I can see that.
What I am really interested in is how the Government are going to use those powers that they have taken in this Bill to deliver the kind of ideas that are actually in my amendment. I want to know what work is going on to produce the kind of comparative data that this amendment seeks to deliver to an unsuspecting world, from this variety of providers; not least because it is not just about accounting standards in financial terms, it is about the relationship of that expenditure to what is being delivered. That is why I have deliberately used the term “management accounts”, not just financial accounts. The public, and many of us, want to see the NHS showing how it has spent the money and what it has produced for that, and to see that on a standardised basis. I remain very sceptical whether the QUIP accounts deliver that. That is the issue that the NHS has to face up to. Unless we tackle that and can use the powers that the noble Earl has referred to in the Bill—and I am happy to come back on Report with a new amendment that relates to those powers—to deliver the comparative management account data, I do not think we are progressing matters very far from where we are now. I would very much welcome a more detailed discussion on this issue with the noble Earl, and with any other noble Lords, before the next part of this Bill, so that we can get to the bottom of this and help the Government use the powers that they are taking in a more constructive way.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would be delighted to have that conversation. I did not in the least mean to suggest that the ideas the noble Lord has put forward are in any way irrelevant. Indeed, quite the opposite, I am aware that there is a lot of work going on at the moment in the very areas that he has highlighted. I would be happy to write to him about that, if that would help as a precursor to a meeting.
I will just cover a couple of the questions that have been asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked to what extent the Office for Budget Responsibility would be involved. The OBR has a very specific role in terms of producing economic information. We would not see a role for the OBR itself in analysing the impact of NHS spending, but this is an area that is always under close scrutiny across the Government, in the Department of Health and beyond. I am leaving the possibility slightly open, if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, asked whether Sir David Nicholson would have sufficient financial expertise alongside him on the board. Sir David Nicholson has said in Developing the NHS Commissioning Board, published earlier this year, that the board will have a finance director as part of its leadership team. That is all I can tell him at the moment. However, it is clear that the board will have a major task in ensuring that sufficient financial control is maintained over the health service as a whole. If it fails to do so—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly reminded us—we are all in trouble.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how we can achieve comparable performance measurement of CCGs. The board will be required to publish an assessment of CCG performance annually, including their financial functions. It must also publish a summary report of the performance of all CCGs.
The amendment is well intended; I have no difficulty with that. However, in practice, as framed, it would be onerous and cut across established government responsibilities. I know the noble Lord, Lord Warner, thinks I am just defending the status quo, but I am trying to say that I am not sure his formula would add much value, particularly as the underlying purpose of the amendment is already achieved under existing arrangements. For those reasons, I hope he will feel comfortable—for the time being—in withdrawing it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response on clinical commissioning groups, but I come back to the question of GPs. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I do not think I was seeking to look at their business arrangements, but I am seeking to find out how their performance as primary medical providers is going to be measured in the future. When the Secretary of State announced his reforms, shortly after coming into government, he emphasised that he wanted to put responsibility for budgets alongside responsibility for expenditure, on the basis that GPs, either through referral or through prescribing, were responsible for most expenditure in the NHS. I assume the intention was, essentially, to encourage GPs to be much more effective in what they did in primary medicine, as it would impact on their budgetary situation; but, given that, how do we get to a situation where we can start to measure the performance of GPs? I do not pretend that it is easy—as I said earlier, I think our own experience with the GP contract shows some of the challenges. However, I would have thought that for the future, some comparative information about GP performance, in addition to the prescribing information that is now available, would help. For instance, one issue would be how good they are at demand management. How good are they at preventing their patients from inappropriately going to hospital? I would have thought this was a rich gold seam.
Earl Howe
I could not agree more with the noble Lord. We want to get closer to the question of what represents value for money in primary care. There are perhaps two principal ingredients of that equation. The first is the money we put into primary care, which we will know through the resource allocation formula, with which the noble Lord is familiar; the second is through highlighting the results achieved through primary care. Primary care clinicians will be accountable as never before by reference to the outcomes that they achieve for their patients. The other ingredient, overarching all that, is transparency. The more measures of performance that we can devise and place into the public domain the better in my view, and in the next few weeks, we will be announcing measures that I hope will be welcome in that regard. However, we are starting from a low base—not much information is currently published. We want to change that, and ensure not only that clinical commissioning groups and the NHS board are aware of all this but that patients and the public are aware of how well or badly a practice is performing. All these things such as prescribing rates and referral rates are key measures of performance, which we have to get closer to. If we can ensure that practices themselves are more able to compare their own performance with those of their peers, that too will be an advance. I am sure that this is a rich seam, as the noble Lord put it, and we very much hope to advance on that front over the coming months.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
Can I just press the noble Earl on that point? We have a situation at the moment that I think is not in patients’ interests. If you want to find out about the quality of diabetes care by provider, hospital or trust in this country, you can find out about it perfectly well; if you want to find out about the quality of diabetes care commissioned by a PCT, you can find out about it perfectly well. The quality of care being delivered to people with diabetes by general practitioners is available and can be seen by general practitioners—who can compare their performance with each other—but it is not available for people with diabetes. Quite frankly, I think that is outrageous and I would urge the Minister to do something about that now.
Lord Warner
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. It was never my intention to assume that the way in which this amendment was framed was the last word on the subject. It is helpful to know that there are provisions in the Bill that can be used or adapted for the purposes that I was seeking to produce. I still remain concerned that we need to use the powers that the Government are taking in a very speedy and effective way to link finance with performance data on a standardised basis. We need to get on with that. It needs to be in place by the time the SHAs disappear. The SHAs have been holding some of this stuff together. Once they go, we will need better systems than we have now to monitor performance and money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, we need that matter to be in the public arena as well; it is not just for the closed world of the NHS. I hope that we can have some useful dialogue on this before Report to see whether we can secure amendments to the existing arrangements that will improve things.
Lord Warner
“( ) In discharging this duty, the Board must annually agree with Monitor new currencies for pricing under the national tariff that incentivise more efficient integrated clinical care pathways for patients, especially those with long-term conditions, and that minimise the use of in-patient hospital services.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, I apologise as I seem to have a series of amendments to this part of the Bill with my name on them. Amendment 103 is the first amendment in this group in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. It brings us to the first of what I suspect will be a number of debates on the complex and difficult issue of a national tariff and the need to use that tariff to ensure the most appropriate forms of care and care pathways for patients.
This is a time for confessions. The current tariff system, which I am afraid I was deeply involved in implementing to scale seven years ago, was designed for a different era when there was considerable financial growth and we were trying to drive acute hospitals to increase capacity to dramatically reduce waiting times for treatment. Those long waiting times, which had been a feature of the NHS for a long period, were the part of the NHS that led to the most complaints being made. They were the issue to which any Government needed to pay attention. The tariff was one of the ways of helping to progress that. The other was, of course, the much maligned targets, which we need not go into at this point.
In some ways, the current tariff has been too successful. It has helped to create overcapacity in in-patient hospital provision and has propped up poor and unsustainable hospital provision in some parts of the country. The current tariff does not promote well co-ordinated, integrated care for people with long-term conditions, which is the bulk of the NHS’s workload, given our demographic profile and some of our lifestyle choices. A significant proportion of services, particularly mental health and community services, are simply not covered by the national tariff and are often still dealt with on the basis of block grants. In 2012-13, the plan is to focus mainly on developing currencies rather than mandatory tariffs. This means that the majority of non-acute services will remain outside the national tariff. What is more worrying is the fact that the continuation of an acute hospital-dominated tariff based on episodes of care without any counterbalance risks these hospital trusts sucking in a disproportionately large amount of our NHS budget, which is shrinking in real terms. This is not a jibe at the Government except to say that they should stop pretending that the NHS can continue with real-terms growth and deliver the Nicholson challenge, as should any political party, including my own.
Tariff-setting is a technically complex business. There are plans to expand it into fields such as mental health where there is no international track record of success in doing that. There are no quick fixes, particularly if there are insufficient people working on a new tariff system. Tariff-setting relies totally on a good understanding of costs, an area where the NHS does not have great strengths, as I think we have just discussed. The current reference cost system has considerable shortcomings and excludes independent sector providers. Most of the rhetoric on price competition is just that—rhetoric—because reliable data to make price competition work effectively within the NHS are usually absent, so we are having a row about something that we probably could not deliver anyway.
The best that this Bill can do is to try to set a direction for future tariff design. The elements of that design should be fourfold. First, it should enable integrated care, not just within the NHS but across the health/social care boundary. This almost certainly means moving away from the tariff based on episodes of care to a year-of-care approach for long-term conditions, or a bundling of the services across care pathways. Secondly, a future tariff system should not be based on average cost, as now, but on best practice for particular conditions. Thirdly, the currencies in a new national tariff should cover the full range of services, not just acute care, which needs to diminish its dominance of the tariff. Fourthly, it should cover unavoidable costs and avoid windfall profits to providers. Unless we start designing a tariff system around those ideas, we will not progress towards a new NHS.
It will take at least three or four years at best to complete a national tariff covering a full range of services. However, I believe that we should set a clear direction of travel for the national Commissioning Board in the Bill. Given the responsibility of commissioners for demand management, it is right that if we are to have a national Commissioning Board it should set the currencies for a new tariff system. That is why Amendment 103 seeks to place the duty on the board to progress this work and to create some momentum by securing annual increments of progress. We can discuss later whether the board should also price the currencies rather than Monitor, but that is a subject for a debate on another day.
In the mean time, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 290 in my name and others in this group of amendments. This amendment would enable whoever is setting the prices in the tariff—currently Monitor in the Bill—to pay incentives to providers to integrate the delivery of health and social care services to individuals. It seems to me that we use the word “integration” without realising that it probably requires someone to do a bit more work than they are doing now to integrate the services, and that has a cost. This should be recognised in setting the tariff for the future so that service providers can be encouraged to take on the difficult job of integration without losing money in doing so. I hope that the Minister will see merit in these amendments and, indeed, others in the group, which move in a similar direction to mine. We need to set the agenda for the board in taking this difficult area of tariff work forward. I beg to move.
Lord Patel
My Lords, my name is added to Amendment 103 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 197E, which is a new amendment relating to commissioning, also stands in my name. Some of the points that I will make are similar to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but I have a slightly different way of looking at tariffs. I see them more from a clinical or patient care pathway point of view than that of integrating services. It is true that tackling the financial physiology of the NHS is critical to enabling the more influential and focused commissioning of integrated care. The payment by results tariff was designed by the previous Government to support the introduction of choice and competition, and specifically to create incentives for providers to increase elective activity to bring down waiting times for treatment and reward them for work undertaken. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just said, that has been a bonanza for some of the acute trusts.
The tariff has played its part in that process with the consequence that access to planned care has improved significantly. Progress in elective care has enabled—or should enable—attention to turn to other priorities, such as providing high-quality care for people with long-term conditions where continuity and co-ordination are key objectives alongside access. This includes shifting unplanned care from secondary to primary care settings, where this will help deliver improvements in efficiency.
As currently designed and operated, payment by results does not appear to be well suited to support the implementation of these priorities, and there is a need to develop incentives that will facilitate integrated care for people with long-term conditions and for other services where this approach is likely to bring benefits. Experience in the United States offers valuable learning in this regard, but it is not the only place, particularly in the development of new forms of payment that go beyond fee for service and case-based reimbursement.
The idea behind episode-based payments—something that my noble friend Lord Warner also referred to—is to remove incentives to deliver increasing volumes of care by bundling together payments for a range of services relating to a particular episode of treatment. One example from the United States is the ProvenCare programme of the Geisinger health system under which a global fee covers the entire cost of cardiac care from pre-admission and surgery to follow-up for up to 90 days after surgery. Episode-based payments are designed in part to improve the quality of care by placing the responsibility on providers for avoiding and correcting errors. You do not get paid if you make a mistake and it takes the patient longer to recover. This encourages care to be done right the first time, and hence offers a more co-ordinated and positive experience for patients.
Capitation payments on the other hand go much further than episode-based payments in potentially covering all the costs of care for a defined population over a certain time period—a year, for example. Integrated healthcare systems such as Kaiser Permanente in California have pioneered the use of capitation funding—or pre-paid group practice as it was originally known—as a way of creating incentives to support prevention and primary care and to avoid the inappropriate use of specialist care. Kaiser Permanente sees acute care as a cost centre, but it sees community care and primary care, particularly for long-term conditions, as where the costs should be maintained and the quality driven. It monitors the performance of the providers of that care more intensively on a one-to-one basis than it does for acute care.
Although capitation funding has a long history, there has been renewed interest in it. In the NHS, various options could be pursued. These include combining payments to cover an episode of care or a care pathway, taking forward the idea of the year of care that has been tested in three national pilots for diabetes—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—and exploring how it might support integrated care; contracting with local clinical networks of primary and secondary care clinicians or foundation trusts to deliver integrated care for a specific population—some of the foundation trusts are experimenting with this and are quite innovative; and, lastly, accelerating work on personal health budgets to enable patients to commission care packages for themselves, with support from carers and families.
In practice, it is likely that all these options, and others, will have to play a part, and a period of active experimentation and evaluation is now needed to work through the consequences. All healthcare systems use a mix of payment systems related to the service that is provided, such as episodic or long-term, and where care is provided, such as primary or secondary care. The NHS is no exception and attention is needed for the way in which financial incentives can be developed to support integrated care where it will bring benefits to patients. The prospect of four years in which the NHS budget will only increase in line with inflation underlines the urgency associated with this work and the need to focus on improving the quality of care and not simply incentivising extra activity at a time when resources are not available to do this. As my noble friend Lord Warner said, it will require tariff flexibility, even tariff bonuses for providing care quicker and of a higher quality. What is needed is system leadership and innovation, which we expect the NHS Commission to deliver boldly, in tariffs for integrated care, with the explicit promotion of systems of integrated care.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I wonder if I might speak to both of the amendments that are down in the name of my noble friend, but also to take a step back from the very competent and skilled amendments and presentations by my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. All these amendments also reveal what might be called a profound lack of agreement about what “integration” actually is. It seemed to me that at this point it might be useful to go and scope what people think integration means, and then perhaps ask the Minister to say which of these meanings he prefers, or which he would like to use. For example, the Royal College of Nursing is extremely worried that the combination of a maximum tariff and any qualified provider means that delivering integrated services will become increasingly difficult.
The NHS Confederation confirmed that the definitions of “integration” and “integrated care” to be used by Monitor,
“will allow different kinds of integration. For example: bringing together specialist services like trauma at one site, or integrating a person’s health and social care into one package, or offering a ‘package’ of care across a large population”.
However, it also goes on to say that:
“Though extending the tariff is the best way to ensure competition is on quality”,
in some circumstances,
“it must be recognised that getting the tariff right is a highly complicated task”.
How will this deliver integrated care?
The King's Fund states that:
“Organisational integration appears to be neither necessary nor sufficient to deliver the benefits of integrated care, notwithstanding the achievements of integrated systems such as the Veterans Health Administration”.
It goes on to talk about the Kaiser example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The fund also says that the Government’s reforms being centred on extending patient choice and provider competition includes encouragement to any willing provider to deliver care to patients and to complete separation of commissioning and provision with the NHS. However, the results could be a system in which there is commissioning from and choice between an “increasingly fragmented array” of competing public, private and voluntary sector providers. As a consequence, integration would be difficult to achieve.
The Nuffield Foundation says, on the tariff and incentive integrated care, that the payment by results tariff was designed primarily, as my noble friend said in his initial remarks, to support choice in competition and bring down waiting lists for elective treatment. It does not appear to be well suited to supporting integrated care for people with long-term and complex conditions.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will talk to us about diabetes, but briefing to us said that people with diabetes already need at least 14 different sorts of NHS services for them to lead long and healthy lives. That seems to be a challenge.
Arthritis Care’s recent response to the Future Forum consultation on integrated services, published a couple of days ago, is very pertinent indeed. It says that:
“‘Integration’ should be broadly understood as providing patient-centred, joined-up care which meets the clinical and personal needs of the patient at every point of their pathway. Arthritis Care fully endorses and recommends National Voices’ Principles for Integrated Care as a key reference point for all discussions on this issue … There must, above all, be a firm focus on the patient. What ‘integration’ looks like is likely to vary geographically and by service, but the specific structures and arrangements matter less than whether services are successfully meeting patient needs and expectations. What it ultimately comes down to is better care for patients and smarter use of resources”.
I think that is absolutely right.
The amendments that my noble friend and I have tabled are Amendments 104A and 178A. Like others in the group, they seek to place a duty on both board and CCGs to take account of the interdependence of services and the impact that the arrangements might have on sustainability, both financial and clinical, of other services. We are concerned that the regime that has been outlined in the Bill places a risk on the coherence of those services. I ask the Minister whether that is on the risk register and what it has to say about the risks that that places on those services.
My noble friend Lord Patel of Bradford, who is unable to be here this evening—I am happy to make these remarks partly on his behalf—is concerned about the disadvantaged people in the care system who are detained under the Mental Health Act. By definition, this is a group of service users who have very little ability to exercise choice or control. In a way, I think that this is a group of people against whom the test of integration and the test of this system should be used. If it can work for this group of people, it may work for others. As they are in a highly vulnerable position, there is an absolute need for integration among health and social care providers that starts at the point of hospital admission and goes right through to the end of their aftercare in the community. The effective provision of such a care pathway requires multiple agencies to work closely together. We know that from many inquiries into suicides and homicides involving people with mental illnesses, and it is highly challenging. There is a very real concern shared by patients, carers, doctors and nurses that encouraging competition in this complex area, without checks and balances to ensure that integration is a primary driver, is very damaging indeed. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will refer to her amendment, and we would support that; I could not have put it better myself.
This is a very complicated and complex issue. It is the first time that we have talked about it in Committee. One thing that the Minister needs to do at this stage is to focus on what the Government mean by different forms of integration and where they will apply and how the Bill will deliver them.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has given us a very wide range of views on what integration consists of. In putting forward Amendment 135A, perhaps I can add another perspective from the point of view of specialised commissioning.
On 14 November, the Minister lifted the veil, to some extent, on how specialised commissioning would work under the Bill. The Bill brings the budget and responsibility for commissioning specialised services together under the NHS Commissioning Board. That has been welcomed by many, including the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, and it gives a real opportunity to deliver the recommendations of the Carter report of 2006. However, the expected benefits of this new system will be fully realised only if there is effective and real co-ordination between the various parties involved in the commissioning, provision and use of specialised services. However, that increases the challenge of integration under this clause, given the gap that would open up between the board at national level and providers at local level, if no steps were taken to bridge it.
There is a danger that the board’s work would become isolated from local commissioners, providers, clinicians and patients and that proper involvement, collaboration and dialogue with those key stakeholders may not occur. In particular, that could lead to pathways of care becoming disjointed, resulting in a poorer experience for patients, inefficient care and higher costs. In addition, it will be imperative to ensure that clinicians and patients are at the heart of all aspects of specialised services, including specialised commissioning. However, although the full subnational offices of the board which, as I understand it, are proposed would nominally give it a more local presence, they bear no real relationship to where the specialist providers are based and patient flows. The patient organisations within the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, therefore, see it as essential that there should be a more local presence; in their view, four clusters would be inadequate.
At col. 541 of Hansard on 14 November, the Minister was not able to be specific when he spoke about this, but as I understand it there will be around a dozen major hubs. An assurance on the parliamentary record would be very welcome. What form of substructure will there be for specialised commissioning if that is not to be the shape of it? Can he give further clarification today? Will this be delivered by the board or will it be delivered in other forms by way of senate, networks or in other forms?
Having heard from the NHS Alliance yesterday about the need for local variation, I am very attracted by Amendment 197E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which to me seems to hit the spot in allowing that variation and giving the CCGs the final say in how they conduct themselves. That has been put to several of us by the NHS Alliance as being absolutely crucial in allowing the various innovations and initiatives to thrive at local level in the CCGs, which are already becoming an interesting and improved way of delivering healthcare.
Lord Ribeiro
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her comments about integration, because I agree with her that we do not have a clear definition. On page 18 of the Bill, new Section 13M is headed:
“Duty as to promoting integration”.
Although the words “integration” and “integrated” are used in the section, there is no clear definition. Yet, in new subsection 4, there is an attempt to define “health-related services” and “social care services”, but not until new Section 13Z3 is there an interpretation which tries to define the “health service” and “health services”. We do need some clear definition of what we mean by integration. Let me tell you what I thought integration meant, when I first took on an interest in the Bill, and I will illustrate it with some examples.
Integration, for me, was not being able to talk to my GP colleague about a patient without having to go through the PCT. I could not just pick up the telephone and say, “I’ll see your patient next Friday”. It had to go through a bureaucratic system before the patient got to me.
From a clinical point of view, when I was referred a patient with gallstones on a Monday morning clinic, after discussing and examining the patient, confirming that she did indeed have gallstones—and I used to have an ultrasound machine in my out-patient clinic, so it was easy to make the diagnosis—I said to her, “I think we can deal with this quite easily with a keyhole operation to remove your gallbladder, but I suspect you may also have an ulcer in your stomach, so before I put you on the list for surgery, it might be a good idea to exclude that”. I went down the corridor to see my gastroenterology colleague, told him about the problem, and he said, “Not an issue, bring her along, and I’ll see her”. Before I knew it, I had had a phone call saying, “I will deal with her next Thursday and gastroscope her”.
The net result of that was that within a week we had an answer for the lady, and I was able to put her on the waiting list for surgery. However, when choice and tariffs came in, it was essential, for the hospital to be paid, that when the patient came to see me in the outpatients’ clinic and was diagnosed with gallstones, I would have to refer her back to her GP, who would then make another consultation with the clinician gastroenterologist in order for her to have the endoscopy to diagnose her ulcer. Those were two inconvenient visits for that patient, purely to fulfil the need to manage the tariff and the issues around choice.
For me, an integrated service gets rid of all those barriers. We should also remember that this is the Health and Social Care Bill; it is about integrating services from the beginning to the end. I have tremendous sympathy and support for Amendments 103 and 290, from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, because they are about getting rid of episodic care. It was precisely the episodic tariffs that required my patient to make two visits to the hospital when one would have done. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration when reviewing this. It is important that we find a formula, or a way to look at the care pathway, and find a way to cost that, rather than the episodic costing of care.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 103, 104A, 106, 135A, and several of the others in this group. Clause 20, new Section 13M, highlights integration of services as something the Commissioning Board should “exercise its functions” to secure,
“where it considers that this would—
(a) improve the quality of those services”.
That is all well and good, but by itself it seems insufficient. Integration is of course difficult to pin down. We have heard quite a bit about that this evening, and I will not repeat those remarks. I know what I mean by integration, so I will give you my particular understanding, for the purposes I want to talk about, using the term to mean a seamless service for those patients, usually elderly and with multiple diseases, who need both hospital and community care, and flit between the two.
It is unfortunately the case that the integration that is needed between health and social services has seen so many failures and been so elusive, despite many wasted words. We have an opportunity here to correct these failures, so I was somewhat disappointed when the Minister said in the debate on 2 November, when we were discussing the role of the Secretary of State, that the Government were,
“not in the business of dictating the processes”—
and that—
“integration is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of a good outcome”.—[Official Report, 2/11/11; col. 1334.]
Surely if integrated care is a good thing—and I think few will deny that—then we must give a lead on how it might be achieved. We cannot ignore the process, and must at least try to see what conditions are necessary for successful integration. We should not go around simply saying it is a good thing, without showing how it might be achieved.
There are many examples out there that we can build upon. We are not entirely in uncharted territory. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned Assura Cambridge and services in Torbay in our last debate, and other noble Lords spoke of Kaiser Permanente, Northern Ireland, personal health budgets and information sharing, as valuable means to an end.
We also have the excellent report from the Nuffield Trust, Integration in Action, that analyses successful integration being carried out in four places across the world, including in Scotland. We are not working in a vacuum, and we could and should take advantage of all this information, and incorporate some of those ideas in the Bill without waiting for yet further work.
Of course, not everything can or should be put in the Bill, but we should see where we can strengthen it, by including more pointers to how we can improve the present, very unsatisfactory, position. Let me give some examples, leaning heavily on the Nuffield Trust report. First, the Commissioning Board should point the way by developing commissioning for bundled payments, and local tariffs for key conditions. I think that is possible. At the moment, fees for service for episodes of hospital care, as we have heard, work against integration with community service. That is something that the board should seek to redress quickly.
Secondly, we should design the national tariffs that we have heard about, which incorporate a full care pathway across the health and social service divide. Monitor and the board should work together to develop a pricing strategy that provides the incentives for integration. They should also develop ideas about how outcome measures, which are admittedly difficult to quantify when we are talking about a complex system like integrated care between hospital and social care, can be used to promote integration across the whole pathway of care. Contracts based on those measures can encourage providers to respond to the need to integrate. There is nothing here that obviates competition between providers, which I am sure will please my noble friend Lord Warner.
We will come later in the Bill to Monitor, but it too should link improvements in outcomes, including the patient’s experience, to the way it regulates integration. Then, there are several measures that clinical commissioning groups and local authorities should be encouraged to develop by the Commissioning Board. One huge area is of the improvements we desperately need in the flow of information between hospitals and community. Too often we rely on phone calls on the day of discharge, which is inefficient and fails most of the time. We should have an IT system which allows information to be shared across the divide. It only requires a competent programmer to produce the programme, and a safe system for preserving patient confidentiality and data protection. I am sure that that is not beyond our capacity.
There is also the need for joint funding and integrated governance arrangements, which we have had some discussion about. This is much easier said than done, but it can be done. We have seen it in action here and there and we must spread the good practice.
There is also the need for people to make the whole thing work on the ground: for example, liaison officers whose sole responsibility is to ensure that patients pass seamlessly across the divide, and nurses and doctors who move without constraint from one sphere to another. The example of specialist district nurses is a good one. They follow patients from hospital to the community and back, and are very much appreciated. Unfortunately, they are a threatened species and are disappearing, largely because neither the NHS nor local authorities will fund them. We must get around that problem.
Of course, much of what is needed depends on a change in the mindset of those working at the coalface in hospitals and the community. If through the Bill we can change the conditions from those that inhibit collaboration to those that encourage it, we can begin the process. The amendments bring a greater sense of the need to focus more strongly and urgently on the duties and responsibilities of the board in putting integration more firmly on the map as a way of improving outcomes. I support them strongly.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203A in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Finlay and the noble Lords, Lord Patel of Bradford and Lord Patel. I will speak also in support of Amendments 135C and 135D, tabled by my noble friend Lady Finlay.
The Bill seems to favour the commissioning of services through the any-qualified-provider model rather than being concerned primarily with commissioning an integrated model of care. Amendment 203A would introduce a duty on clinical commissioning groups to commission multiple providers of health services competing to deliver a section of the care pathway only where they can demonstrate to the NHS Commissioning Board that the approach is beneficial to patients. Integrated care pathways are particularly important in complex, long-term conditions such as serious mental illness or challenging behaviour, for example in someone with learning disabilities who is also on the autistic spectrum.
There have been attempts in the NHS to deliver integrated care pathways, with varying degrees of success. The introduction of a plurality of providers in mental health services in recent years is already showing signs of fragmenting complex care pathways in some instances. The disaster of Winterbourne View is just one example of how commissioning one provider to deliver part of a pathway without planning, commissioning and co-ordinating the whole of an integrated pathway can be an expensive and tragic mistake.
The further introduction of competition between providers has the aim of reducing the cost of provision while maintaining and improving the standard. This is a noble aim on which we may all be able to agree. However, commissioners must evaluate whether the aim is being achieved, recognising that care pathways vary hugely in different conditions and even for different patients. The variety of provision needed means that we cannot easily—if at all—prescribe a rule to cover all situations. Of course, the health service exists to serve patients, not providers. It is in this light that we must consider proposals to introduce competition between providers, and it is because of this that the burden of proof must be on those who favour increasing competition to show that doing so would benefit patients.
The risk is that many providers will compete to provide more profitable parts of a pathway, cherry-picking the parts they would like to offer, perhaps only to the least complex patients, thus leaving unmet the less easy to cost and define but still essential parts of the pathway. The importance of an integrated care pathway cannot be overestimated. The comfort patients take in knowing that their entire provision is being dealt with in a coherent, joined-up way may be put at risk under an any-qualified-provider system. As always, it is the most vulnerable patients whose needs may remain unmet.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 135CA in my name. We have already had a very interesting debate about what we mean by integration. Obviously, different people mean different things. The sense in which I will talk about integration is how we can encourage integrated care pathways for people who experience some of the worst inequalities in terms of access to healthcare.
Clause 20 states that the NHS Commissioning Board will encourage integrated working between clinical commissioning groups and local authorities. This is clearly welcome. However, it needs to go further. Those with the worst health outcomes often have the most complex needs and can often benefit most from integrated care. However, as is so often the case, disadvantaged groups can easily be overlooked in the overall system. The fundamental aim here is to ensure that integrated care pathways can be set up that specifically target those with the poorest health.
I will briefly explain why integrated care pathways are important for those with complex needs. A number of patient groups experience health inequalities. We all know about that, and heard about it in our previous debates. In their 2010 report, the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health identified a number of groups of people who have complex needs and as a result carry a disproportionate cost to the NHS. The report states that,
“socially excluded people often make chaotic and disproportionate use of health care services, and experience a range of barriers and issues relating to their access and quality of primary care”.
As we know, these groups include homeless people, people with mental health problems, people with drug and alcohol addictions and others.
I will give a specific example of why this is a very important issue. Homeless people have some of the poorest health outcomes in our communities. I will give noble Lords a couple of facts and figures. Eight in 10 homeless people have one or more physical health need. Seven in 10 have at least one mental health problem. Between 50 and 75 per cent of rough sleepers experience mental health disorders, including anxiety, depression, dementia and psychosis. Research by the Department of Health, again in 2010, estimated that the average age of death of a rough sleeper was between 40 and 44. I find that statistic shocking. Finally, the Department of Health estimated that this had a knock-on cost to the NHS that was four to eight times greater than that of a person in the general population.
As a result of these patients’ complex needs, barriers often exist that prevent them getting the treatment they need. Some services simply exclude them because they are deemed too difficult to deal with—too chaotic or complex. Evidence was found that one in 10 homeless people is refused access at primary care level. Integrated care pathways are crucial to provide personalised and accessible services that treat multiple problems at the same time.
I shall give a very brief example of how this can really make a difference in practice. The average age of homeless people dying while living in a St Mungo’s hostel is just over 40 years. Back in 2009 St Mungo’s began an intermediate care pilot at one of its hostels in south London. It was run by a full-time senior nurse and a health support worker. Together they worked with residents to help improve their health and well-being and particularly to prevent unnecessary admission to hospital. They also arranged appropriate discharge from hospital. As a result of this pilot there has been a marked increase in attendance at HIV services, chest clinics, dental appointments and mental health services. Calls to the London Ambulance Service have gone down by 13 per cent and hospital admissions by 40 per cent, which I think is a very significant figure.
This fits very much with the Government’s approach. Indeed, this amendment builds on the commitment to improve the health of the poorest the fastest, which has been part of these health reforms since the White Paper was published in 2010. It also builds on evidence presented by the NHS Future Forum, which stated:
“We need to move beyond arguing for integration to making it happen whilst also exploring the barriers. We would therefore expect to see the NHS Commissioning Board actively supporting the commissioning of integrated packages of care”.
In their response, the Government agreed that integration of commissioning health and social care should be the ambition for all local areas. The Government have made a number of welcome commitments to strengthen local development of pathways between health and social care providers, and we have heard about some of them this evening. They obviously see an important role for the NHS Commissioning Board working with senates and CCGs in taking this forward. Can the Minister explain how—in achieving better outcomes for those with the poorest health, as is required to reduce health inequalities—the aims of improving integrated working and the health of the poorest the fastest will be achieved in practice?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. Amendment 203A has been spoken to fully by noble friend Lady Hollins, who has supported other amendments in this group. Amendment 135C would require a biannual report by the board to the Secretary of State on what has been done to promote integration. The other amendments are all designed to promote collaboration, decrease duplication and bring together primary and secondary care and public health and the diagnostic services to have better diagnosis and management of disease.
Integrated working allows patients and their carers to benefit from good primary care provided by GPs and others in the team, to have help and support provided by those working in social care, and to access early referral, appropriate investigation and treatment as required from specialist services. Good integrated care needs to see the patients and their experience in the context of their lives, social support, relationships, cultural experience, gender and a range of other factors. Bringing together an integrated social and clinical approach should include holistic plans for diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, support and long-term follow-up.
In their report Teams without Walls, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health highlighted the recommended use of patient pathways as the building blocks for services, with the right balance between prevention, early identification, assessment, intervention and, where necessary, long-term support. They also pointed out that this had implications for commissioners, providers and regulators of services. Multi-professional working with the patient at the centre of everything provides the opportunity for a wide range of professionals, including those outside an organisation, to monitor care delivery and challenge standards. This will help prevent trusts and professionals from becoming insular. Insular practices can result in negative cultures developing and poor standards becoming tolerated.
The clinical commissioning groups have quite a challenge facing them if they are really to commission and develop integrated as opposed to fragmented care. Much has been said on this already, and I will not repeat the points made by previous speakers. However, patient needs will be better met if we move to a tariff structure that better reflects clinical complexity. The Government’s response to the Future Forum report seems to recognise this, but the current tariff structure overcompensates for simpler conditions and consistently under-compensates for more complex and unpredictable areas of care. To encourage integrated working, consideration needs to be given to a system in which payments are received over a longer term and for the achievement of integration and good clinical outcomes. To do that, it will be crucial for Monitor and the Commissioning Board working closely with royal medical colleges and specialist societies to develop a tariff that will provide integrated care.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, much has been said on this group of amendments and I will not delay the Committee too much. I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we should know what integrated care is. We have had several descriptions around the House. We have within the Bill a duty to promote integrated care, so it is important that we have read into the account the Government’s thinking on what “integrated care” means. I think that I echo the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, in saying that.
I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Walton, who is not in his place at the moment, did not mention Mrs Smith of 66 Acacia Avenue, or we might have said Mr Chowdry of 66 Mafeking Avenue. What does sitting at home feel like to those patients who are in receipt of community care? How does it work out for them? Integration of primary and secondary care with social care provision is what it really should be about. I look to the Government to reassure me that that is what we are talking about.
We have to be aware that some barriers in the NHS will require this financial manipulation. On the one hand, there is a profound mistrust by acute providers of the competence of community-based and primary care workers. Sometimes that has been justifiable in the light of the historical deskilling of clinical care that occurs in primary care settings. On the other hand, there is an attitude bordering on paranoia from community and primary services staff about the predatory nature of what Enoch Powell referred to as the “voracious” acute hospital sector, which is entirely justified by their experience of being sucked in to the acute hospital, and especially true since payment by results came in, which has had a really negative effect on this problem. Then there is the wild card of GPs who can suddenly bring to a halt community-based care out of hours, if they feel like it, without any impact on their budget at all. Noble Lords who, like me, have spent a great deal of time putting in packages of care will understand how frustrating it can be when it suddenly comes to a halt and nobody has budgetary responsibility for it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, and I broadly agree with it, with one slight exception. She said that she did not think that there were many examples around the world of particularly good integrated practice and then she mentioned that there had been considerably activity of this kind in some mental health trusts in the UK. I want to throw a slightly more cheerful note into what has been a slightly gloomy debate. As it happens, this morning, a Canadian doctor friend of mine brought to me the latest report of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts study on relationships between doctors and patients. It is a comparative study of 11 medical systems throughout the world. I shall not keep the Committee for long, but I will read a couple of the findings that date from November 2011. It was a major study of thousands of patients—more than 1,000 in Britain, a couple of thousand in the United States and so on—at the time that the report was put together at the end of 2009. I shall be very quick, but I think it is quite remarkable. In patient engagement in care management for chronic conditions, which is something we have been talking about a great deal when talking about integration, the country that comes out the best of the 11 is the United Kingdom. In shared decision-making with specialists, the first is Switzerland, the second—
Baroness Murphy
I am very well aware of the wonderfully heartening Commonwealth of Massachusetts report, but the point I was trying to make is that we are marvellous at health and social care integration in this country compared with many others. Having spent my life doing it, I am quite proud that we can say that we do it better than most. But my point is that if you want cost-effective purchasing of care systems that promote it, we cannot point to anywhere in the world where there are very good, efficient systems. Kaiser Permanente is a very restricted system for its employed clients in California. We do not have the systems that financially promote a drive towards those systems. It is not that we do not do it, but that we do it in spite of, not because of. However, the report is most heartening.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I would not disagree with the noble Baroness on that issue. I agree with her, but I am trying to make a different point, which is that I think we have been left with, by sheer good fortune, if you like, a much better starting point for serious integration than many other health systems. It relates also to Amendment 203A, which was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay, about the role of competition, about which I am rather less confident than some others.
I shall mention two other findings from the report because it is a remarkable and impressive story. On the doctor/patient relationship, there was a question about how far patients felt that they had close relations with their doctors and the ability to speak to them and to discuss their cases with them. Once again, quite remarkably, the United Kingdom comes out second to Switzerland in the 11. To take a final and very surprising finding in this study, on medical, medication or lab test errors in the past two years, the figure for the United States was 22 per cent, for the Netherlands it was 20 per cent and for the United Kingdom it was 8 per cent. It is extraordinary that we so rarely blow our own trumpet in this country, and very occasionally, we should.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right. It is a great report, and I have read it. Would she care to join me in speculating about why the department has not made it its headline story?
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I think the answer to that had probably better come from the department rather than from me, but I am consistently surprised by the failure, not of this Government but of Governments of the United Kingdom for a long time, to say what the real achievements of the NHS have been and to recognise that outside this country it is widely regarded as perhaps one of the most outstanding health services in the world. It is worth saying that from time to time because we have 1.2 million people employed in the NHS and they deserve a great deal of the credit for having maintained a high standard in the face of very considerable financial pressures, even in the past. We have always had among the lowest expenditures per patient in the 11 highly industrialised countries, with only a couple of countries—Australia and New Zealand —spending less than we do.
There are two points to this argument. First, we are in a much better place to integrate care than we seem to think we are because we have already clearly established relations of trust between doctors and patients, and between hospitals and doctors, to an extent that other countries clearly regard as enviable. Secondly, one has to ask why we suppose that competition is a better way to deal with healthcare than are integration and collaboration. There is one area where competition is clearly crucial, and I accept that. It is in innovation and in trying out new ideas. None of us would in any way be opposed to that happening. However, I would like to put it on the record that if we are going to move in the direction of collaboration and integration, we have a very strong base on which to do it and we have the makings of something very impressive and important. The makings of that appear to be stronger in this country than in most others.
Lord Warner
I would not normally have interrupted the noble Baroness, but this canard that somehow integration is incompatible with competition has to be challenged. I refer the noble Baroness to the King’s Fund’s work on integration and its citing of Kaiser Permanente operating in a competitive market and doing very successful integration. I would also refer her to the peer-reviewed article by Zack Cooper of the LSE in a recent edition of the Economic Journal, which makes it absolutely clear that competition under the previous Government both improved patient outcomes and reduced deaths.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I have actually gone in to the story of Kaiser Permanente very carefully. It is not surprising that if you choose the very best example in another country you can make a favourable comparison. I am talking about the outcomes for a whole population rather than a particular part of a population. I have said already that there are certainly areas where competition can play a very important part—I referred to innovation and new ideas—but I am simply putting on the record that if you look at the comparison between the health services of the 11 most advanced, richest and most industrialised countries in the world, the combination of integration and competition that we have here appears to have rather better outcomes than in those countries that rely much more heavily on competition such as the United States.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 135B. Since the Future Forum report, there is a renewed focus on integration in the Bill, and we welcome that. However, as a number of noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, there is a need to define what we mean by integration. Government amendments largely reinforce the benefits of integration to the NHS rather than looking at the system from the perspective of health and social care, service users and using integration to develop person-centred services. My amendment and others in this group seek to begin to address this.
Since most people with long-term and complex health needs also depend on social care services in order to maintain their health, well-being and independence, it is crucial that the Bill ensures that measures to increase integration also extend to social care. In the NHS, integration has primarily focused on integration of primary and secondary healthcare and to integrate back office support such as IT, human resources and estate management in order to make efficiency savings. While both of these aspects of integration are important, they will not lead to the system transformation hoped for in the Government’s Liberating the NHS White Paper. We need to continue the now reasonably well established place-based approach to integration which brings health and social care together, in which the totality of public resources is directed to develop seamless services which support individuals. As such, they are far more likely to lead to system reform in which all public services focus on achieving better outcomes for individuals and communities.
Local councils have an established record of commissioning for people with complex and ongoing health and social care needs: in particular, homeless people; people with mental health problems, learning disabilities, AIDS/HIV and dementia; and children’s health. It is vital that commissioners of services for people with complex health and social care needs understand the important contribution of housing, leisure and recreation, access to education and other mainstream local authority services to supporting vulnerable people to remain healthy, independent and productive members of the community. Noble Lords have pointed out that clinical commissioning groups will have little understanding or experience of commissioning the complex package of support required. I would therefore emphasise the importance of joint commissioning or delegating commissioning to local authorities and hope that the Minister will respond positively to this.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the subject of the tariff may, to an outsider, seem rather dry but I will begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that I agree with him that it is fundamental to having an effective and efficient health service and better care for patients. Indeed, as noble Lords have articulated so well, this group of amendments takes us to the heart of one of our running themes in Committee; namely, the integration of NHS services, both within the NHS and more widely with social care services. I agree that this is a subject of profound importance. The NHS Future Forum highlighted this while also identifying that some people had real concerns that competition in the provision of NHS services could act against the development of integrated provision.
First, what do we mean by integration? A number of noble Lords have asked that question. The duties to promote integration would cover both integration between service types—for example, between health and social care—and integration between different types of health services. Whatever the combination and however they are integrated, the practical effect should be that services are co-ordinated around the needs of the individual. This duty would apply right the way through the system. It would certainly apply to the board when exercising its functions, not just its commissioning functions.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, who made a very important point about vulnerable people in particular. For example, CCGs could comply with their duty of integration by choosing to commission services jointly with local authorities. We have always envisaged that happening. The joining-up of services could, as I say, be between different organisations or between workers within an organisation or even with advice that is given to patients about self-care and the treatment that is delivered by providing organisations. What matters is that the service is based around those patients, not the other way round.
It might be helpful if I said something about the Government’s approach to competition in the NHS. We are clear that in some circumstances competition is a force for good. Competition can create incentives for providers to innovate and improve effectiveness, as well as enabling greater choice for patients. My noble friend Lady Williams made that point very well. However, there is no single model of competition that will be right in all circumstances. Indeed, in some circumstances, competition will not be appropriate at all. Who should decide questions of this kind? Our view is that it should be for commissioners to decide whether—and if so, how—to use competition to further patients’ interests. In doing so, commissioners must act transparently and would need to consider the type of service and the needs and preferences of patients who would receive it, and be able to demonstrate the rationale for their decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, made a helpful intervention on this issue. The NHS Future Forum report stated:
“We have also heard many people saying that competition and integration are opposing forces. We believe this is a false dichotomy. Integrated care is vital, and competition can and should be used by commissioners as a powerful tool to drive this for patients”.
The Government agree. That is why the Bill set out duties for both the board and CCGs on promoting integration when commissioning services. The board, CCGs and health and well-being boards, as well as the regulators, Monitor and the CQC, will have duties to encourage integration and work across health and social care.
These changes should make it easier to deliver higher quality service pathways of patient-centred care. To help support commissioners, health and well-being boards will provide a forum to bring together people from across the health and social care sectors. Furthermore, the Bill gives the boards a specific duty to encourage health and care commissioners to work together to advance the health and well-being of the people in their areas. I might just mention that we have also asked the NHS Future Forum to consider in more detail how we can ensure that our reforms lead to better integrated services, and its conclusions on that topic will be with us shortly.
It is perfectly possible to have responsive, joined-up services working in patients’ interests and competing for their choice. For example, commissioners could decide to run a tender for a whole pathway of integrated services to be delivered by a single provider. This could encourage providers to bring forward innovative, integrated care solutions that deliver greater patient benefits and greater efficiency. Only a few weeks ago, I visited in Oldham an example of exactly that: musculoskeletal services delivered in the community, specialists from a variety of disciplines situated in one building and accessible to patients directly, and with short lines of communication. It is very popular with the clinicians and patients involved, and is achieving great results.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, pointed out, the extent to which particular services will benefit from both integration and choice will vary. Diabetes networks provide high-quality services with a high degree of integration but limited choice for patients between providers. I am sorry not to have a contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this point, but I am sure she would agree. Certain mental health services may be another example of this. For other services, more choice may deliver better outcomes. This is why the provision in the Bill enables services specified in a particular way in the national tariff to be unbundled and paid for separately. That should happen, however, only where this is demonstrably in patients’ best interests. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in support of her Amendment 203A were very helpful in that context.
Monitor would have duties to support commissioners by enabling integration through the exercise of its functions. This reflects the fact that, as I have indicated, the driver for integration within the reformed healthcare system must come from clinical commissioners rather than from the regulator. Having said that, we are clear that, consistent with its duty to enable integration, Monitor will have an important role here. For example, the Commissioning Board would specify services for the purpose of tariff-setting, which may include bundling services together or specifying care pathways. Monitor’s role would be to devise methodologies for pricing those services.
I would not want to go further than that and make it a statutory requirement that the tariff could specify services by reference to clinical pathways, as some amendments in this group imply. That would be overly prescriptive and unnecessary. While tariffs for whole pathways of care may be appropriate in some circumstances—and I have mentioned an example or two of this—that may not always be so. For example, it might be appropriate to give patients choice about which provider provided a particular element of their care along a pathway. If the tariff enabled only a single payment for a whole pathway of care, it could deny patients that choice. Hence, we need to retain flexibility within the tariff and remain focused on outcomes.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke with great authority about specialised services. Sir David Nicholson, as chief executive designate of the Commissioning Board, published Developing the NHS Commissioning Board in July, which set out proposals for how the board will operate and how it will be organised. It is envisaged that the initial sub-national structure will reflect the arrangements that have been made for PCTs and SHA clusters. It is envisaged that the field force, as he describes it, will be responsible for commissioning specialised services, providing the flexibility for this to be organised at different levels according to what is most appropriate for that condition. My noble friend was absolutely right to draw attention to the need for integrated pathways of care in specialised services. We believe that we are setting up the structures to deliver just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, helpfully indicated that the tariff should be based on four main principles: integrated care rather than episodes of care; best practice, not average costs; a full range of services; and particularly the need to avoid costs that did not need to be built in and windfall gains. Those factors form the basis for the new tariff structure provided for by the Bill. Provisions will allow currencies based on integrated services and pathways of care by specifying bundles.
Monitor will set the costs based on a fair level of pay for providers. The board will be required to work towards the standardisation of currencies, which will enable the extension of the tariff to a wider range of services. What the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about tariffs reflecting clinical complexity was absolutely right. We tabled amendments in another place to prevent providers from benefiting from cherry-picking services, including providing for a fair level of pay and a requirement for transparency in patient eligibility and selection criteria.
My noble friend Lady Tyler spoke compellingly about addressing inequalities. The Bill does not lose sight of that. The board’s duty under new Section 13M, to be inserted into the NHS Act under Clause 20, and that of clinical commissioning groups under new Section 14Y to promote integration—
Baroness Thornton
I am thinking about Monitor, what it is doing and its role as an economic regulator. Why is it the best body to decide on the price, cost and value of things?
Earl Howe
It needs to be a body that is separate from the NHS Commissioning Board. Determining what represents an appropriate price in the system is a very specialised discipline. We think that it will be helpful to have a sector-specific regulator doing that work. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness setting out our rationale on this, but I make no pretence that this is a complex job. We do not think that it can be done very readily at the local level, although it would not be impossible. We think that local commissioners will need to be supported in this task.
Baroness Thornton
Perhaps when the Minister writes to me, he could explain why it is better that economists and regulators dictate those decisions rather than clinicians.
Earl Howe
Yes, I will. To address the point that I began just now, the board’s duty to promote integration specifically requires it to exercise its functions to ensure that services are provided in an integrated way where it considers that this would reduce inequality in outcomes. Those words are very important. That is mirrored by Monitor’s duty to enable integration.
I completely understand the intentions behind the amendments in this group. We have had a very helpful debate. We believe that the duties in the Bill, coupled with the wider levers in the system to promote integration, address the points that have been made. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, although I am sure that this is a theme to which we shall return.
Lord Warner
My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. I do not wish to keep noble Lords from their supper. I just want to log with the noble Lord the thought that, ultimately, if we look at history, changing the tariff has been a long, arduous job. I ask him to think some more about whether we should give a little more of a push to the work of the board in setting currencies than we have so far. Monitor cannot get on with pricing until those currencies are settled. That is the potential blockage in the system. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
UN: Specialised Agencies
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they can enhance the United Kingdom’s role in United Nations specialised agencies through clarifying objectives and better communications.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, in this short debate we are looking at the work of the UK with other nations of the world through the specialised agencies of the United Nations in order to deal with the most serious issues facing peoples and countries today and in the future. I declare a family interest in that my grandfather, Maxwell Garnett, was Secretary of the League of Nations Association in the 1930s. He often used to fly the United Nations flag. For five years in the 1990s I was privileged to be the UK representative at the World Meteorological Organisation, a UN specialised agency. I also declare an interest as a director of an environmental consulting company.
Many of the agencies—such as those for health, the environment, economics and human rights—originated in the 19th century, particularly those dealing with meteorology, health and communications. They were voluntary bodies then, and much less governmental than they are today, a point that I want to return to later. They were an important element in the formation of the League of Nations Union following the First World War and then became important bodies in the United Nations when that was formed after the Second World War. Indeed, the person who wrote many of the documents for both of them has a statue in Parliament Square—namely Jan Christiaan Smuts. One of the features of the United Nations compared with the League of Nations was that there was a much stronger element of the international body commenting on, helping, interfering with and almost intervening in nations in the interests of adhering to the principles of civilised society and for the benefit of populations. Governments were strongly pushed by regulations to avoid torture, not to starve their people and to respect human rights. The influence also extended into areas that are very important to science, such as requiring member states to provide their people with information important to their safety and well-being, and for economic development, an area which United Nations bodies still find extremely difficult.
However, I believe that these agencies have made many great achievements. Examples are the reduction of disease through the World Health Organisation, the provision of humanitarian assistance, and providing advance warning of disasters. A nice example of this was that in the 1990s the area of uncertainty about where a tropical storm in the form of a hurricane or cyclone would hit 24 hours ahead was around 220 kilometres. Within a few years, research brought that down to around 130 kilometres. The area of uncertainty was greatly reduced and that led all the countries of the world to use much more accurate methods. In the area of culture, we have all benefited from the World Heritage Sites listed by UNESCO, one of which we are in today, of course. Last year, the United Kingdom’s nomination of Charles Darwin’s Down House was accepted; and for the information of noble Lords, this year China is putting forward Kubla Khan’s Xanadu, which is mainly a grass field, by the way.
One of the other very important features of the UN system is that it provides standards for business, science and medicine for the whole world. My aim in tabling this debate is to point out that, in my experience and that of many people who have both written and spoken to me, these agencies could achieve much more. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes the lead in our involvement with the United Nations. I am informed that the UN department at the FCO is staffed by around eight people, so it would be impossible for them to deal with the 50-odd agencies of the UN, and therefore the government departments take the lead on these issues. However, we could do much more to involve Parliament and interested organisations and to build our contribution. A number of suggestions have been made.
First, the United Kingdom should provide a report to Parliament about the key objectives of the United Nations agencies and how the UK is contributing to those. There are many important multiagency themes on which the UK has been pressing, such as climate change, food and water, as well as technical issues such as data. One of the frustrations for a scientist in the governmental world is occasionally hearing a civil servant asking, “What have data got to do with policy?”. It is a slightly puzzling statement, but the attitude is quite widely held. The role of data is changing all the time and it is no longer just provided by government bodies, it is provided by all sorts of organisations. The United Nations’ bodies are in fact being rather restrictive in the way that they handle and think about their involvement with data. The United States is introducing data exchange centres where you can bring data together from many different sources. It is important that UN bodies move in that more open direction. That is an example of themes which such an annual or biannual report could tell us about in future.
The reports should also tell us about where agencies need to change. The United Kingdom is always very good at telling UN agencies to be more efficient economically and to spend less money, but they are not very good at producing broader, non-financial goals which are, after all, why these bodies are there in the first place. It is important that such a report should describe the areas where there should be changes, though hopefully in a constructive spirit. I fear that there have been some reports by British government departments on UN agencies which widely displease our fellow nations in the UN because they are done in such an unconstructive spirit.
Even experts have no idea about the emerging issues that such reports could communicate. For example, you probably do not know that there is a UN agency just the other side of the river, the International Maritime Organisation, which regulates and defines the rules for dealing with geo-engineering, which is the study of how we can control climate change. The experiments being planned to put iron particles in the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide are, of course, a very radical idea which must be regulated. Even the Royal Society was unaware, when it was talking about geo-engineering, that this discussion was actually going on here. These big, new and important issues need to be publicised. These reports should also give information on the significant decisions and achievements of these agencies as well as their problems.
I also want to emphasise the importance of stakeholders being much more involved when there are significant meetings of these United Nations agencies. There is currently some circulation within Whitehall in advance of such meetings, and sometimes to the technical agencies, but there is very little real consultation. I read about how these United Nations agencies started in the 1920s, so when I was head of the Met Office I made sure that we had very wide consultation with many industries and stakeholders. However, this does not always happen. Nowadays, when IT allows these ideas to be circulated, there is much more possibility of that happening.
My second point is that UK delegates at meetings of these significant United Nations agencies—although they are very responsible and sometimes have other government departments present—hardly communicate back to London at all, unlike those from the United States. They certainly do not communicate with stakeholders online. This is now perfectly possible, because there are many public sessions of UN agencies which could be reported. They are in fact being reported online. I can see many meetings, such as a recent one on biodiversity, as they happen on my BlackBerry. This is not courtesy of the United Nations or any Government; it is courtesy of the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Canada. I can see what is happening in many parts of the United Nations on my BlackBerry, which is extremely helpful. I can then send e-mails to somebody to say, “Why don’t you do this, that or the other?”. This is clearly the new world that we are in. I am sorry to say, however, that when I spoke to a colleague in the Foreign Office, she said that she did not have a BlackBerry and therefore would not know what I was talking about.
I know from personal experience that reports are sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth after meetings. Most of these are not secret but they are nevertheless classified as such, so if you want to read what happened you have to wait 30 years. It would in fact be perfectly possible to have these reports done openly. I wrote a report after the WMO congress in 1995 at which we talked about developments in meteorology and how it should be applied to this, that and the other thing. It is now in a file somewhere and you can read it in 2025. This is not how we should be dealing, and it is moving on very slowly, I am afraid.
One of the puzzling features about the UK’s involvement in these agencies is that it is not at all clear why certain government departments are in the lead and how they participate with the other lead departments. For example, I have had considerable concern expressed to me by scientific bodies about the fact that UNESCO, which has a wide range of interests—cultural, scientific, educational and so on—is responsible for important programmes in oceanography and hydrology, as well as culture. The government department in the lead for UNESCO is DfID, which is of course a very responsible and well known department. However, while it is pretty good on economics and development, it is not so hot on those other areas. It is not at all clear that communication on these matters is taking place.
There has to be more effective collaboration, not only between government departments but between industry, NGOs and scientific institutions. Some research councils, whose scientific work I admire, employ the United Kingdom technical representatives at certain UN agencies, but their significant role is poorly understood by the senior management—I shall not name names. Most of the senior management either do not know or do not meet the UK representatives and do not regard it as important. I believe that representing the United Kingdom at a United Nations agency is a very important and responsible role, and it is absolutely essential for senior managers to know who is doing it and to make sure that they report to them and that there is some dissemination afterwards.
This brings me to another of my points. I believe that the Foreign Office—
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that this is a timed debate. I am terribly sorry, but he has had 10 minutes.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Well, that is almost the end of my shopping list. I thank noble Lords very much indeed.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, in this wide-ranging review of the UN agencies and I congratulate him on securing this short debate.
In the 60 years since the formation of the UN, we have come a long way, going much further than the original conception of forming an organisation for maintaining peace and security through mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. The specialised agencies, numerous as they are, have come about as Governments have realised that some of the most pressing problems of the world are not capable of resolution through the exercise of bilateral co-operation alone.
Winston Churchill saw that in his advocacy of concentric circles, which included the countries of empire, the alliances of Europe and the strategic north Atlantic interest that the UK was dependent upon after the war. So pooling sovereignty to the extent that we have in multilateral organisations is not something new. Yet in the UK, a founding member of the UN, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to knock the UN and its agencies except when we need them. At that point, the same people lament their inability to do whatever we want them to do at that particular time.
I welcomed the Government’s multilateral aid review earlier this year as an extremely useful exercise in evaluating our relationship with the UN specialised agencies and in taking forward a new approach. I want to make just three broad points in relation to these bodies.
The first is that while an individual member Government can do well to review the effectiveness of an international organisation—and I want to put it on the record that I think the multilateral aid review did an excellent job—it nevertheless brings to that exercise a narrow prism of sight, hence the review was commissioned to assess the value for money of UK aid funding for those organisations. I accept that the criteria related to strong behaviours which are capable of measurement—in this case, organisational strengths and contributions to UK development objectives—are entirely worth while. Any keen observer of UN agencies will not have been surprised to see that the list contained few surprises, and those that performed poorly or were merely adequate were those that had had a poor track record for some time. It was also not particularly surprising to see that they shared some similarities in weaknesses: a lack of a sharp focus on their mandate; an overly bureaucratic administration, which caused delays; inefficiencies built into the system; poor cost controls; and references to poor leadership and thereby, implicitly, to poor governance.
They are all areas which, were they to be found in corporate life or indeed in government, could be resolved through process and management change. However, the very essence of multilateralism—of being beholden to multiple stakeholders—makes consensus on change an extremely challenging task. Most countries can agree on what they think is wrong, but it is far more difficult to agree on what they think they want from that organisation going forward.
I refer back to my own experience at the Commonwealth Secretariat where we were constantly being pushed in one direction by a particular group of countries, and in another direction by another group. I think it is fair to say that when one thinks of the failure of the Commonwealth to resolve the political situation in Zimbabwe, it was not a failing on the part of the organisation but the lack of consensus on the part of its key members to be able to see a way forward which prevented effective action at the time. I use this example to suggest to our Government that achieving change in the direction we seek will be more easily delivered if we work across the other groups of stakeholders in a diplomatic and consensus-building fashion—sotto voce rather than megaphone diplomacy.
My second point is related and concerns the more practical aspects of cost controls and building efficient and transparent systems. There is a crying need for reorganisation of the governance of these bodies if they are to carry out their mandates. Some have overly cumbersome executive boards, overstaffed senior levels that have been in post too long, and a general risk aversion, which makes new learning more difficult. While we want lean and efficient structures, we the member countries do not accept that a quota system of recruitment actually works against the most high-calibre candidates.
If one is to take leadership changes at the IMF or World Bank, it is not an edifying spectacle in a global economic crisis to see a jockeying for position for the top job, not on the basis of merit but on the basis of whose turn it is. It also leaves the population of countries that do not “win” that post with the impression that the officeholder will from now on be partisan. This cannot possibly encourage confidence in those bodies. On the board, Buggins’s turn results in compositions that may not be fit for purpose. At executive level, the need for geographical balance may well deliver a less than optimal workforce. I urge like-minded countries to work with the Secretary-General and director-general to streamline board and human resource practices to reflect a stronger emphasis on merit, to the exclusion, if need be, of the requirement for geographical balance if the case is strong enough.
A further point is about the location and mandate of UN agencies. A good example of a body stifled from birth is that of UNEP. By basing it in Nairobi, it was hampered from the outset by the fact that it was cut off from the rest of the UN system geographically, and it struggled to recruit the highest calibre staff. In keeping with a somewhat lower status as a UN programme, it has had one of the smallest budgets within the system. Given that it is expected to look after a range of environmental issues, from climate change to biodiversity, water and ozone depletion, it is overstretched and underresourced. Given those constraints, it does a remarkably good job.
Let me turn now to one of the priority areas identified by the MAR—that of programmes supporting the empowerment of women and girls. Last year saw the creation of UN Women. Its full title is the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. The reason it is an entity, we are told, is because its mandate is cross-cutting across other UN bodies to cover all themes related to women. It has strong leadership in the appointment of its first head, Michelle Bachelet. Its mandate is wide-reaching, so it was a little surprising to see that Saudi Arabia, that leading example of gender equality and empowerment, was voted on to the executive board. It came in in an obscure category of,
“developing country not on the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD”.
It stretches the imagination to think of Saudi Arabia in the context of gender equality but it also stretches the imagination to see it as a developing country. I wonder why it is in the G20 in that case.
I know that my noble friend will be prevented from commenting on this aspect of less than good governance because of diplomatic protocol, but I raise it to illustrate how we the member countries need to build smart alliances with other like-minded players to prevent perverse outcomes which simply heap ridicule on bodies which have important roles.
The UN agencies operate in challenging environments and perhaps our expectations of them are too high. However, as the multilateral aid review points out, it is our obligation to secure the best possible outcome for UK taxpayers and we must continue to press for our reform priorities if we are to maintain public confidence in the UN system, which it benefits us to do.
Lord Judd
My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on his initiative in securing this timely debate, I must also thank UNA-UK for the very helpful briefing material that it has provided.
In our now completely interdependent global community, the value of effective international co-operation cannot be overstated. It is essential to generate a real sense of community and of shared challenges and shared objectives in meeting those challenges. We must be ready to learn from each other and avoid counterproductive dangers of competition for influence and power as part of which we may be tempted to misuse our aid programme. That is why the UN agencies, with their representative global membership, are so important. However, I am certain that to fulfil their potential it is essential to improve their integration and co-ordination.
I will concentrate in this debate on three vital agencies facing actual and potential shortfalls in funding. These are agencies that would particularly benefit from strong UK support, financial and political. The UK is on the governing board of all these three agencies.
The first is UNESCO. UNESCO is currently facing a shortfall of at least $65 million and has been forced to temporarily halt some activities as a result of the sad US decision to withhold dues following the acceptance of Palestine as a UNESCO member. Two US laws enacted in the 1990s prohibit the funding of any bodies that admit Palestine as a member. Therefore, the US is not paying the dues that it owes for this year of $65 million and has suspended future funding. The US normally contributes 22 per cent of UNESCO's budget. Israel has also frozen its contributions and Canada has indicated that, while it will continue to pay its regular dues, it will not provide any additional funding.
I warmly congratulate the Government, who have just been elected to UNESCO's executive board, on having indicated that they will not cease funding. The UK could play a significant role in supporting UNESCO during this period. I know that the agency scored poorly in the March 2011 DfID multilateral aid review, but its funding was not cut because the review confirmed its unique contribution to education, development, science, culture and heritage. The agency has since undergone a reform process that has seen, among other things, a stronger focus on girls’ education. The UK should work closely with other executive board members to ensure that UNESCO improves its performance and to encourage other states to plug the funding gap.
The UN Population Fund, which is the UN's lead agency for population matters, reproductive rights and family planning, is also coming under fire in the US. Pro-life Republican representatives have blocked the Senate Appropriations Bill, which contains the US voluntary contribution to the agency. The fund categorically states that it does not promote abortion and nor does it espouse coercive policies such as China’s one-child policy, a claim made by the agency’s critics in the Senate. The agency of course had its funding frozen during the George W Bush era, even though a 2002 State Department investigation absolved it of these charges. President Obama reversed the decision in 2009. Over 90 per cent of the agency’s funding is voluntary.
This year, the global population breached 7 billion people. An estimated 215 million women who wanted to delay or avoid pregnancy were unable to afford or access contraception, and half a million women and girls died from childbirth-related complications. The fund’s work to support family planning and safe motherhood, and to provide essential information on population trends, has never been needed more. Given the UK’s strong focus on women’s and girls’ health, it is imperative that it does all it can to support the fund’s work, both financially and politically. As with UNESCO, the UK is in a key position as a member of the agency’s executive board.
UN Women, the new UN agency for gender equality and women’s empowerment, began work this year. In the past, the four main UN bodies working on gender issues lacked the cash, clout and co-ordination effectively to champion equality and empowerment. UN Women consolidates these bodies, absorbing their mandates and acting as a voice and focal point for gender issues within and outside the UN system. In 2010, the UN General Assembly agreed a budget of $500 million for the new agency—far short of UNICEF’s $3 billion, but significantly more than the combined budgets of the four previous gender entities, one of which of course was UNIFEM. However, the agency has faced a severe shortfall in funding from the outset—just 1.4 per cent of UN Women’s budget comes from the UN’s regular budget, and, six months into operation, it had received a little more than a fifth from member state contributions.
The UK’s decision to provide UN Women with £10 million a year for the next two years is to be warmly welcomed; but it is essential that the UK—which is on its executive board—reviews whether there is more it can do, both financially and politically, to support this new agency. UN Women is not only a vital tool to further the UK’s gender and development priorities but a flag bearer for improved UN co-ordination and reform.
The current world situation, of which the Arab spring is a telling example, means that the ILO is potentially a particularly relevant player in global affairs. I am therefore glad that the UK Government will remain a member and that our basic dues will continue to be paid. However, I am deeply concerned that DfID is no longer to provide additional voluntary funding. This averaged £6.6 million from 2006 to 2010. I fervently hope that it is not an inflexible position, and that DfID will indeed continue to contribute funding for specific in-country projects on a case-by-case basis.
There is room for some concern, lest the criteria used for the multilateral aid review might not always have reflected the remit and mandate of some of the UN agencies under scrutiny. For instance, the criteria appeared to be weighted towards shorter-term interventions in the poorest and most fragile states. Those are utterly worthy and proper objectives in themselves. However, many of the agencies—for example, the FAO—place more emphasis on medium to long-term development. Others have also had wide-ranging programmes that cannot be classified as aid and mandates to operate in developed as well as developing countries. That has always been their purpose. Are we really changing our basic attitude towards organisations that we helped to found?
As I said in my introductory remarks, international co-operation is absolutely essential to our future. The Government seem to be taking a positive and responsible position. If we can spur them on to put even more muscle into the international dimension of policy, particularly as the economic situation recovers—we hope—the better it will be and the more it will deserve support from all parts of the House.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for initiating this debate in this rather late dinner break. It has provided us with food for thought, even if we will not get much real food later as a result of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us what a visionary concept the United Nations was, coming out of the Second World War, and how it saw the problems of the world in terms not of a narrow diplomacy of interstate relations but of global issues that needed to be tackled collectively. That logic has grown more powerful, not less, over time, given the collective action deficits in areas such as climate change with which we now have to grapple. Therefore, the logic of UN agencies is very strong. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us, there are many achievements. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us, those agencies tackle many difficult issues of central concern such as population and the rights of women.
Britain should strongly support this kind of multilateralism because we should aim to maximise our impact in the world through a pooling of efforts. Multilateralism through the UN has a special legitimacy. I am sorry if this sounds like a political point in a partisan debate, but given the Foreign Secretary’s talk of restoring traditional diplomacy is there not a risk that we are devaluing the importance of multilateralism and the good that it can do? I speak particularly of the United Nations in that context. Britain has always believed that it can punch above its weight in the world. We can and we do, but all the time, as economic power is shifting away from Europe towards the East and other parts of the world, that weight is declining and punching above it is less effective.
It is a mistake to prioritise traditional bilateral diplomacy at precisely this time when what we need is more multilateralism, so we should strongly support the UN agencies. It is easy to criticise some of the aspects of their management. I welcome the multilateral aid review that DfID has carried out. DFID, of course, approaches these issues from its own distinctive development perspective. There are arguments for agencies that concern not just international development, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. For instance, the work of the ILO in promoting decent labour standards is absolutely fundamental if we are going to maintain a world of free and fair trade. It needs to be developed. It does not often deal with the problems of the very poorest countries, but it does deal with issues that are vital if the legitimacy of the world trading system is to be maintained.
Let us not knock the UN and its agencies, and let us not apply too narrow criteria in assessing their work. The UN, for all its imperfections, is something on which we need to build. Of course we should have a credible policy for reform, but I do not think that we can lecture the rest of the world about the need to reform the UN agencies when we take such a negative view of reform when it comes to the management of economic institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. It gives us no credibility to call for reform in other areas.
We will not get very far simply by lecturing people from the outside. We have to work on a reform agenda with people who share our concerns. In particular, we have to try to identify the best people for top management positions, and we should offer to support those people on merit and not on nationality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has said.
My noble friend Lord Hunt emphasised that we should press for greater transparency. His key recommendation was that we should have regular reports to Parliament on the work of the agencies, and that documents to do with the agencies should not be secret but should be publicly available. I would welcome the Minister’s views on these topics tonight. Are the Government looking into providing greater transparency? We should certainly be pushing for clearer objectives for measures of success in for accountability for spending and all those things. However, let us first carry that out in practice domestically, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has recommended.
We have had an interesting debate here. The UN agencies fulfil a vital role, and while pressing for reform we should be strong supporters of them as well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I was not entirely sure what to expect from this debate. There are a great many agencies, boards and programmes in the world. I remembered when I started to read the briefings beforehand that I used to teach a course on international organisations at the London School of Economics. As I discovered, the students were hoping that this course would help them to get good jobs in international organisations. It evolved over the years into a course that, as I told them in the first lecture, was intended to dissuade them from joining an international organisation.
I did my best to explain the structural problems that all international agencies unavoidably suffer from, and the necessarily good work that they do in some rather difficult circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, functional agencies long pre-dated the UN. Some of them were 19th century agencies such as the Universal Postal Union and some riparian bodies. The International Labour Organisation was founded just after the First World War. Then the United Nations sponsored and provided a degree of accountability for a whole generation of new bodies. There are now a great many. Unfortunately, some duplicate each other’s activities and there is some overlap.
That is part of the problem of assessing how valuable they all are. I recall that the FAO, the World Health Organisation and UNESCO had enormous problems in their secretariats and in their effectiveness 30 or 40 years ago. All agencies have suffered from American ambivalence. The Americans wanted agencies to serve the global good, as the United States saw it, which meant, in those days, opposing the Soviet Union; and Russian, Chinese and Saudi ambivalence has been a problem for many years. Agencies are unavoidably imperfect, even more imperfect than national Governments. Recruitment and appointment is part of the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that we should find the best people on merit, not on nationality. He knows very well from his time in the European Commission that that does not apply even in the European Union. It is much harder to apply in organisations that have well over 100 state members and in which the Finance Minister of a particular country wants to get his nephew into a really good job, or the President wants to get his son into a really good job. Those are the problems with which we have to deal.
There are also perverse outcomes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has pointed out, not just in UN Women but on the Human Rights Council, with which, in this imperfect world, we have to deal. I can recall taking part in a conference associated with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in which I dared to crack a joke about the Iraqi approach to a number of matters, whereupon I was immediately denounced by the Iraqi delegate at this informal conference and an official apology was asked for. One has to be very careful how one behaves in international bodies.
The United Kingdom is an active and major player in this complex world. We provide between 6 and 7 per cent of contributions to these various agencies and our contributions are rising. The United Kingdom is now the largest contributor to international agencies in Europe. As the United States becomes a more ambivalent player, in a number of ways we are becoming more important; we are an engaged player. I hope noble Lords agree that the multilateral aid review was a very constructive assessment of the limited effectiveness of a range of different bodies. It was extremely complimentary about the effectiveness of some and constructively critical of a number of others.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom I think I remember first meeting at a UN association meeting a very long time ago—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
—when I was young. The noble Lord talked about the problems of a number of agencies, in particular UNESCO, with the loss of US funding and with the United Kingdom having just been elected to the executive board. UNESCO continues to have a number of problems with effectiveness. This new blow will be an additional one, but we also recognise that UNESCO carries out a number of functions that are not provided by other international agencies, and it is in all our interests that those functions continue to be effectively provided.
I should perhaps admit to a very small personal interest; I was rather upset that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did not point out that Saltaire is also a world heritage site. I hope that he will visit it soon.
The UN Population Fund is also under fire from the American right, but that is not a new story. Agencies have been under fire from the American right for as long as I can remember. The Cold War had even more attacks of that sort. The UK is again playing a constructive role on the executive board. UN Women, a reorganised body, is too young for us to be able to see how effective it will be, but we are giving it our full support.
The International Labour Organisation, on which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, commented, has a number of problems. Only 40 per cent of its staff are currently working in the developed world. The International Labour Organisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will know, has negotiated and agreed a very large number of conventions on aspects of labour, many of which still lack enough national ratifications to be carried into practice. There is a limit to how useful it is to design things on child labour, and other such things, which are not then carried through to ratification and implementation by the majority of the members of the organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, thinks that we are a little too critical of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I would suggest that we remain constructively critical of an organisation which has been in deep trouble in the past, and is now improving but has some way to go.
Noble Lords asked about the British approach, and how far Britain should press on its own for improvement. Of course we should work with others, and we do. One of the pleasures of my work in government, as someone who goes to regular Foreign Office ministerial meetings, is to hear how frequently the Foreign Secretary says, “Well, the most important thing in this is that we must work with our European partners to maximise our influence in X, Y or Z”. Of course we do that. We work with all of the partners we can do—European and Commonwealth—through as many networks as we can. However, we often discover that the Western caucus within these organisations has to be careful not to upset what is still seen as the G77 caucus and that tensions within these agencies about who tells whom what to do remains a source of problems. The question of who pays and who does not pay is a rather different thing. The multilateral aid review, as a national contribution, was a constructive contribution. It provides a basis from which we can talk to other Governments about what needs to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about reports to Parliament and parliamentary oversight. He may recall that there have been suggestions in this House in the past four or five years that we might experiment with an ad hoc committee on international organisations which might look at the how Britain relates to international agencies and which ones provide us with the best value for money. That suggestion might again, if he wishes, be raised with the Liaison Committee.
It is right that the British Government should be asking, since we are a major contributor, what value for money we receive from these bodies. Since we are on a rising curve in our international aid budget, and in our contributions to these organisations, we have to have some concern about public acceptability. Perhaps not every noble Lord in this Chamber reads the Daily Mail with as much attention as I do every day, but the Daily Mail is not an enthusiast for rising British contributions to international agencies. It is not enormously enthusiastic about international agencies as such, be they the European Union, the FAO or the UN Population Fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the balance between the FCO and other departments. These are functional agencies and it is therefore proper that the functional departments should provide the lead. A lot of the work, particularly that of some of the environmental and meteorological agencies, is highly technical and expert and there is an expert community, particularly in the climate change world, which works with the Government and with their counterparts in other countries to progress the work that is under way. The FCO does not attempt to duplicate that work. It has a small department which co-ordinates what others are doing and works with them through our representatives and our delegates in those various agencies when they meet. Engagement with outside experts and lobbies is high. At the UN conference on climate change, the number of British lobbies represented has been astonishingly high. It is not something that takes place behind the scenes.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that I do not see the contradiction he suggested between prioritising bilateralism and downgrading multilateralism. We are doing both and it seems to me that the stronger one’s bilateral relations, the stronger one’s multilateral relations can also be. We are working with others to try to improve these organisations. Building coalitions within organisations such as the European Union, the Commonwealth and many other global organisations seems to be the way forward.
I end where I started. These agencies will never be perfect. As we all know, internationalism suffers from structural problems. We have our own ideas about how the world should be organised and how agencies should be organised, which are not always shared by the Governments of all other countries, so we have to work with them.
Lord Liddle
Will the noble Lord give a commitment to consider the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for a regular report to Parliament and greater transparency?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I will gladly commit to considering that. The British Government, here as elsewhere, are very concerned about transparency. I apologise: I should have taken up the point that the noble Lord made about transparency of data. Data are extremely important in many of these areas. We are doing our best to provide better data. In the multilateral aid review, a great deal of emphasis was placed on how much data are available about the effectiveness of work on the ground, in-country, by particular agencies. That is very much part of the way forward.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Could there not be a commitment to be more IT? We are in an IT world and I would like to be able to read more stuff from the Foreign Office on my BlackBerry. How about that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I promise to write to the noble Lord on that. I have now extended my time. In spite of the fact that we are running a little short, I should probably draw my remarks to a close. Again, I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. We ought to spend more time looking at how international agencies work. They play a very important part in holding the world together and I agree with him that we pay much too little attention to the work that they do and to assessing its quality and how it might be improved.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
“( ) In discharging its duty under this section the Board shall, after consultation with Monitor under subsection 171(4) and the appropriate clinical commissioning group, advise the Secretary of State whether or not the NHS service configuration in a particular area is financially or clinically unsustainable within the mandate issued or proposed to be issued by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, this is probably not the best time of night to be concentrating on this set of amendments, because it brings us to the difficult and controversial issue of service reconfigurations. Let me start with why I think that we need to move upstream from the full-scale failure regimes which are provided for in this Bill, and with why I do not consider that one can rely totally on local commissioners and elected Health Secretaries to undertake the scale of service reconfiguration that the NHS requires, or as quickly as it requires. In making that statement I start from a position that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. In the field of service reconfigurations past behaviour has not been a speedy or easy process to start, let alone finish.
I do not want to spend long on why it is urgent, but the essence of this is the Nicholson challenge, which is £20 billion of productive improvements in the NHS in the four years to 2015-16. As the Health Select Committee has pointed out, no health system in the developed world has ever delivered this level of productivity. To say that it is a big ask is a masterpiece of understatement. The NHS’s track record on productivity improvement is, putting it at its best, modest, so we are dealing with a difficult set of issues, on top of which there are constant pressures from demography, advances in science and rising public expectations in the UK healthcare system and, indeed, in virtually every advanced healthcare system. That is what confronts the NHS.
It is crystal clear that the public and politicians are beginning to recognise more openly that the historic patterns of service provision built around district general hospitals do not meet current or future healthcare needs. They certainly have a capacity to gobble up resources without necessarily delivering the type of services that many patients of the NHS need and which could be delivered more cost-effectively but probably not using the present pattern of hospital configuration. What that means is that we are facing a situation where in many parts of the country we have to change those hospital services very rapidly indeed, and we have to make some painful decisions on those service configurations, which can often mean closing some services, doing some services in a different place, redeploying and retraining staff and, in some cases, in all probability making some staff redundant. That is why this is contentious territory and why it has proven difficult to do. We are now moving towards a financial situation where we cannot put off the job of reconfiguring these services much longer.
The difficult problem we have in the way this Bill is structured and in the way we are approaching this is that we are expecting this painful stuff to be done in a situation where we are saying that local clinicians and local people have got to face up to these difficult decisions. They have got to start the process, unless it gets so bad that Monitor is required to trigger a failure regime. In many cases, the problem manifests itself in an acute hospital, but often you cannot solve the problems of that acute hospital without looking at the wider health economy within which it is situated, so we have a situation which is asking quite a lot of local clinicians, certainly based on experience, to start the process of reshaping those services however right it is in principle to expect local people to take the initiative in these areas.
Historically, we have faced a situation where elected politicians in the form of MPs have found this extremely difficult territory—whether they are going to be Kidderminstered, or whether they are going to find themselves having a very small majority and feeling honour bound to carry a placard around outside the local hospital without making a change. That is not a criticism of them; that is a fact of life. Asking local elected politicians and local people to, in effect, fall on their sword to some extent in relation to changing these hospital services is a big ask. This amendment tries to face up to some of those realities. It suggests that waiting for things to fail, to get so bad that they trigger the failure regime, is putting Monitor in a pretty tough situation.
This amendment tries to move upstream from that and to advance the argument that Monitor, with the support of the national Commissioning Board, should be able to look upstream and see the hospital services that are heading towards failure—in this case, I have taken a period of 12 months before failure—and start to do something about it. In co-operation with the national Commissioning Board, Monitor could trigger an independent panel to work with local people to come up with a set of proposals for reconfiguring services within a reasonable timescale set by Monitor that would make those services sustainable financially and clinically for the future. That is not to say that local people should be excluded but we should have a trigger that brings in some facilitation to help them get there.
Fast-forward, then, to the end of that process. We have often talked about the Chase Farm example. Seventeen years is a bit of a long time to sort out an A&E department, but that is what it has taken. My noble friend Lady Wall is still struggling with what comes next. We have to have something better than that. Elected Ministers are also constituency MPs. They understand the problems that some of their colleagues face. Sometimes they even understand the problems that their opposition colleagues face in these situations. It is not surprising that they find it difficult to take decisions quickly, even armed with the current independent review panel. No stone is left unturned in trying to give local people an endless chance to stop progress. We call it public consultation but it is in fact a stopping of progression of the reconfiguration.
What my amendment also does is to say, at the end of that process, that the Secretary of State cannot be taken out of the loop, but if he is going to turn down this independent panel’s set of proposals for making services sustainable clinically and financially in a given area, he has got to give his reasons to Parliament for doing that and has to come up with an alternative proposal for making those services sustainable. That is why I think we badly need a process of this kind where there is a trigger, some independent facilitation and some lock on the ability of the Secretary of State to endlessly procrastinate or avoid taking a decision coming out of an independent panel.
I am the first to recognise that this may not be enthusiastically received by the elected political class. It is probably a bit much to stomach appointed Peers proposing this idea. However, I am putting this forward on a non-partisan basis in the hope that we can move forward in this area on a basis similar to the one that I am proposing. At the end of the day what I am doing is pinching something. This is not a totally original thought. I am pinching it from Canada’s experience, where in the 1990s the healthcare system in Ontario was literally going broke and they had to find a way of not bypassing the elected political class but facilitating a set of changes that made it easier for elected politicians to take difficult decisions. That is the purpose of this amendment and I move it in that spirit, as a constructive attempt to deal with what I acknowledge is an extremely difficult and complex problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend for raising what I think is one of the most difficult issues the health service is going to face. There is no doubt that if the efficiency challenge is to be met, there has to be a major reconfiguration of services. Yet, as my noble friend has said, we know that this is often very difficult to undertake and get local sign-off. Both my noble friend and I enjoyed—if that is the word—experience as Minister for the health services in London, and both of us have been involved in some of the agonised discussions with the outer-lying hospitals and boroughs. The whole London area is littered with proposals that have been made for many years and which have not been put into effect. There are other examples up and down the country. The problem is that the health service no longer has the luxury of being able to rely on the uncertainties that are caused by the current system. Reconfiguration needs to take place, and rapidly, over the next two or three years.
I am enormously sympathetic to my noble friend’s amendment. It is interesting that in our previous debates the view has been expressed that ministerial intervention has often caused the problem. My noble friend would still push this substantive decision back to the Secretary of State. That is probably right, because in the end, however much the Government might wish to push this back onto the health service or onto the NHS Commissioning Board, I should have thought that the interest of MPs in reconfiguration issues would have sucked the decision back to the Secretary of State one way or another. We have to assume, therefore, that any process that is put forward does involve the Secretary of State.
I have no doubt that the noble Earl will say that we do not need to go down this route and that he is confident that clinical commissioning groups will be able to embrace reconfiguration of acute services and get sign-off from the appropriate or relevant local authority. I am sure that there may be some areas where that might happen, but of course, one has first of all to recognise that if a major reconfiguration is proposed, it will involve a number of clinical commissioning groups. The first test will be whether a number of CCGs will be able to come together to achieve a strategic outcome. Secondly, even if that happens, those clinical commissioning groups have yet to feel the heat of battle. They may well theoretically sign up to a reconfiguration, but they are inexperienced, I would suggest, in the kind of pressure that they will come under from politicians and the public. I suspect that one or two will find it very difficult to hold the line.
The other problem with the current proposals of the Government is that clearly they wish the NHS Commissioning Board to have a leadership role. However, the Commissioning Board will have much less legitimacy than Ministers when it comes to controversial decisions such as closures of accident and emergency departments. It is easy to see how these may come, in the end, to little fruition.
I certainly support my noble friend. The only question I put to him is whether his process is really tough enough. I wonder whether what really needs to happen is that every area of the country should be reviewed by some kind of independent body as to whether the configuration of services is safe and appropriate. It no doubt could have examinations in public, similar to the old strategic planning process that we have had in the planning system. I would favour a much stronger statutory approach to this, which forces each health economy to come to the table, to put their viewpoint, but then to have an outside group of experts who would then make strong recommendations to the Secretary of State. I fear that without such external views we will find it very difficult to make progress. I suggest to my noble friend that he should consider whether he might need something stronger to make this bite.
Lord Warner
I never thought that I would be outflanked on the Stalinist wing of the Labour Party by any Member of your Lordships’ House, but clearly I have that all wrong. I would be happy to strengthen these proposals because I rather share my noble friend’s view that I may be being a little wimpish here, but I was deferring to the elected politicians on this, probably unwisely. I am producing this rather wimpish proposal, but somewhere along the way we certainly have to have a trigger that is independent of the political process. We need some outside facilitation of change with the local people and we have to restrict, to some extent, the ability of elected Ministers to totally undo or avoid taking decisions in this area, possibly as much as my noble friend is saying.
Baroness Cumberlege
Those words are so warm to my heart, I cannot tell the noble Lord how much. One of the things that really concerns me is delay. I am worried that if we get this outside group it will delay matters, because some of this is very urgent at the moment. What is the relationship between this and the independent review panel—I am not sure what it is called—which deals with hospitals at the moment?
Baroness Cumberlege
I am indebted to my noble friend for that. Does the Independent Reconfiguration Panel play a part in this? Is it something different? Do we have to go through that as well, in which case it will take even longer?
Lord Warner
Something equivalent to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel was used earlier in the system. It was put in to bat with the local area by Monitor when it saw trouble coming down the railway track in the form of failure. I envisage that a standing group of people would be approved to work in this area, which Monitor would be able to assemble very quickly. My amendment proposes that a timescale is set for this panel to work with local people and to come back with a solution to the problem, but I think that more people than are currently approved for the reconfiguration panel will be needed because of the points made by my noble friend. In many parts of the country we are likely to have to intervene quite quickly because we have spent a lot of time over the past 10 or 20 years putting off decisions about some of these places. A lot of these places will come to Ministers, the national Commissioning Board and Monitor over the next few years, so we will need quite a few different panels.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this group of amendments usefully focuses us on reconfiguration and the sustainability of NHS services. The sustainability of services will be centre stage for commissioners and providers alike. I should like to set out some key features of the Government’s reforms, which I hope will reassure noble Lords that the system we have put in place will deliver sustainable NHS services. The first key feature is that local clinical commissioners will be responsible for securing continued access to healthcare that meets the needs of local communities in consultation with health and well-being boards. Any proposals for service change will be locally led by clinicians in consultation with patients and the wider community.
The second key feature is that the continuity of services regime requires Monitor to support commissioners to secure continued access to NHS services. Monitor will do this by undertaking an ongoing assessment of risk and intervening to support recovery and to prevent failure where possible. Therefore, the onus is on commissioners and providers to address any problems with the sustainability of NHS services. Only as a last resort where commissioners and providers have failed will Monitor step in to appoint an administrator to take control of the provider in order to secure continued access to NHS services.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested that there would be nothing between a locally led process leading to an agreed reconfiguration and Monitor triggering the failure regime. That really is not so. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain. There are various levers available to Monitor before failure is even thought of. First, regulatory interventions are available to Monitor through the licence in order to protect patients’ access to essential services where Monitor considers that a foundation trust is at risk of becoming clinically or financially unsustainable. I agree that there should be a way for the system to respond when, as the noble Lord put it, trouble is seen to be coming down the railway track.
Where it is appropriate, Monitor would be able to direct a provider to appoint turnaround specialists that would provide additional capacity and expertise to support a provider’s management in turning an organisation around. Monitor would also be able to appoint a pre-failure planning team to work with commissioners to develop plans for securing continued access to services in the unlikely event that turnaround was unsuccessful. That process may identify reasons why service reconfiguration would be needed to secure sustainability, but it would remain a commissioner-led process. I hope that I have made it clear that it is appropriate for local clinical commissioners and not Monitor to lead this process with support from the NHS Commissioning Board. The board will be able to support clinical commissioning groups by providing support and advising on the possible effects of larger changes, and Monitor will support commissioners in protecting patients’ access to essential services through the licensing regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that the board should play a leadership role. The Bill allows for that to happen in a number of ways, using commissioning guidance to set expectations on how CCGs should deal with reconfigurations that span CCG boundaries. It would also provide access to advice in the form of senates to help them develop their proposals. Ultimately, where a local authority challenges a proposal, the board will be able to direct the CCGs on their plans, so there is an interest in making sure that those plans are robust to start with.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I understand that, but is not the problem as my noble friend said? If you look back over the past 20 to 30 years, the NHS has found reconfiguration decisions very difficult indeed. The new system potentially has weaker bodies, in the form of the clinical commissioning groups, covering smaller areas, such that taking a bold decision on matters such as closing an accident and emergency department would be very difficult. In one way or another, what is being suggested is some kind of external mechanism that essentially forces the local health economy, both commissioners and providers, to come to terms with the latest knowledge in relation to safety and quality. They would actually have to face up to the challenge.
This happens in a way with the various inspections of the colleges and the deaneries, and we know of a number of hospitals where the viability suddenly goes because of an inspection and they are not approved for training. This has a devastating domino effect on the rest of their services. But surely the time has come for a much more proactive external review of each local health economy area. It would be of assistance to those who wish to move and modernise services because they would be able to turn to the mechanism, whatever it is, and say, “We have to change”. If the Government are simply relying in this legislation on local forces, my fear is that that simply will not happen quickly enough.
Earl Howe
I understand the noble Lord’s point; it is one that we have thought carefully about, as he might imagine we would. The trigger for local service reconfiguration is often a joint decision by commissioners and providers that the current configuration of services does not offer the highest quality care or that it does not meet current and modern clinical practice. It is usually a dialogue between commissioners and providers which identifies services as being, in some way, not optimal for patients, and that a reconfiguration is the most appropriate way to improve and modernise services, rather than smaller scale operational change.
We are proposing that commissioners should engage and consult on these changes in the normal way, working closely with providers and engaging with patients, the public and local authorities in developing their proposals. However, I agree that there are clear roles for the board, and for Monitor, in ensuring that this process is given a fair wind. They have an interest in ensuring that services are of high quality and sustainable and they will wish to add value to the process.
We talk as if all reconfigurations were long and drawn out—we all know of some that are like that—but the successful reconfigurations tend to be those that have involved more, rather than fewer, local stakeholders. That is why we are strengthening the powers provided by the Bill, so that reconfigurations can take place in a genuine spirit of local engagement and partnership.
Lord Beecham
What does the Minister mean by local consultation and local considerations? One can envisage a situation when hospitals serve just a particular locality. However, in many areas, there are trusts and hospitals serving a much wider community—a sub-regional or perhaps even a regional community—and who then is to lead the process? Who then is to take the decision? There could be several commissioning groups involved, looking at the facilities in question, rather than just the one or two in a particular town or county.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is absolutely right. In that kind of situation the process would inevitably become more complex. I do not know whether the noble Lord noted the comments of Dr Jennifer Dixon of the Nuffield Trust when she gave evidence to the Commons committee, but she said:
“If you look at some of the more successful attempts at reconfiguration, more involvement of local groups was necessary in order to get change. Some of the unsuccessful ones have been those where they have communicated less and involved fewer people”.
So paradoxically, she said, having more local organisations involved,
“could have the opposite effect”.
I think that that was a very perceptive comment. We think that the Bill should strengthen and encourage these relationships, either within a local area, or within a larger one, where services are commissioned over a larger area, as very often they will be, and you will get a broader dialogue taking place. The main object for all of us is to ensure that the mechanisms for this kind of partnership-working and local engagement are in place.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the length of time that some reconfigurations have taken in the past. We are very conscious of that. Under our plans, local authority scrutiny functions will be required to publish a timescale for when they will make a decision on whether to refer proposals for substantial service reconfiguration. We intend to change the existing regulations so that, where scrutiny functions are delegated to joint committees of two or more councils, councils could not step in and exercise those functions. This should prevent proposals which have taken time to develop and agree through a joint overview and scrutiny committee from falling apart at the end of the process by one local authority choosing to refer.
I understand the noble Lord’s concerns and will of course reflect on his proposal. However, I think that we are creating what could be an effective framework that would allow commissioners and providers to work together to reconfigure services where that is needed to protect patients’ interests. To support that, the Bill sets out a commissioner-led framework. We think that it is right for patients that it should be framed in that way. With the prospect of continuing dialogue on this subject, which I think will rear its head on more than one occasion as we go through these Committee proceedings, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content for now to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner
My Lords, this has been a useful piece of—if I may put it this way—foreplay on this subject before we get down to real business. I want to say a couple of things to the Minister as he goes into reflective mode.
We tried turnaround teams with individual trusts in 2005-06 in the aftermath of financial failure. The trouble was that they tried to solve the problems of a particular hospital within that hospital and not within the health economy. I listened carefully to a lot of what the Minister said. Many long-standing problem trusts cannot solve their problems. You can keep coshing them into insensibility, but they cannot solve them on their own. They need to be solved within a much wider context. I would pray in aid north London, which in my judgment has something like three district general hospitals too many for the income that is likely to be available. Those hospitals cannot be saved on their own. There is a massive reconfiguration exercise to be done in a wider health economy. I give turnaround teams three out of 10; we need something better than that.
I wish the Minister and the Government well in trying to tackle this subject. It may be that all Governments have to go through the difficult process of learning by disaster, which is what may happen here. We are dealing with a deep cultural problem in the NHS. It believes that, somewhere along the line, a cheque will come through the post to bail it out at the local level. Unless that culture is changed dramatically, I do not believe that the Minister’s well intentioned approach is likely to deliver the change that we need.
I, too, shall reflect, but I think that we shall come back to this matter and look for something which may not be as draconian as my noble friend would be satisfied with but which moves in the same direction if we are to see the changes that the NHS needs made in the timescale that is needed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.