House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the effect on patients of clinically led commissioning.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Clinical leadership in the design of services for patients will deliver better outcomes and improve patient experience of care. In the last year, for example, NHS Dorset clinical commissioning group has worked to improve outcomes in cardiology, dermatology and muscular-skeletal services, and NHS Nene CCG has admitted more than 3,000 patients on to a proactive care scheme, which I have had the privilege of seeing for myself, to identify and reduce the risks of people needing an emergency admission. That is one reason why the number of emergency admissions to hospital in the NHS fell by 1%.
Stephen Mosley
The Secretary of State will be aware of Chester’s location on the border with Wales and of the issues with cross-border health care commissioning. In order to ensure that there will be no financial shortfall for the West Cheshire CCG in relation to the treatment of patients who are registered with general practitioners in Wales but who receive treatment in England, will he confirm that the cross-border commissioning funding protocol between England and Wales will be fully implemented?
Mr Lansley
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could convey my best wishes to the Countess of Chester hospital, which I visited just before Christmas, and my appreciation of the work of the West Cheshire CCG. I can confirm that discussions between officials in the Welsh Government, my Department and the NHS Commissioning Board are under way to extend and renew the protocol for cross-border commissioning for 2013-14 and beyond.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State believes that the reconfiguration of hospitals is clinically rather than finance led, will he ensure that NHS North West London publishes full risk assessments of its decision to close four accident and emergency departments and replace them with urgent care centres?
Mr Lansley
As the hon. Gentleman will—I hope—be fully aware, the view of Ministers is clear: any reconfiguration of services must be driven not by cost but by a need to improve clinical outcomes for patients; must be in line with the commissioning intentions of the local commissioning group; must be on the basis of strong patient and public engagement; and must protect the choice available to current and prospective patients. To that extent, I hope that all the necessary information to support those four tests is in the public domain.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
GP commissioners in Bromley have opened a consultation on the future of services currently provided at the Orpington hospital site. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the administrator recently appointed to South London Healthcare trust takes account of the consultation’s findings when drawing up his proposals for how best to put SLHT on a sustainable clinical and financial footing?
Mr Lansley
I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that when I appointed the trust special administrator and set a timetable for his work, I specifically added 30 days on an exceptional basis to the timetable for the production of his first report, one of the exceptional reasons being that an accelerated consultation should take place locally on the future of Orpington hospital.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I shall give the Secretary of State one last chance on rationing.
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Gentleman needs to listen carefully to what I am about to say. Yesterday, he promised action to stop the restricting of cataract operations for financial reasons, if given evidence. How about this example? NHS Sussex has imposed severe restrictions that contradict the Department’s own guidance, “Action on Cataracts”, and this has seen the number of operations in Sussex fall from 5,646 in 2010 to 4,215 in 2011. Does the Secretary of State consider that fair to older people, and will he now take the action his Department has promised?
Mr Lansley
I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman many times, as has the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), that it is not acceptable and we will not allow NHS commissioners to impose blanket bans. I will gladly take note of and investigate that example, but I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me with a document that purported to contain a series of examples from across the country, most of which turned out to be fictional. I shall respond in writing about NHS Sussex and put a copy in the Library of the House, but, as I have made clear, we, unlike our predecessors, will not accept any blanket ban on treatment. Any treatment must be clinically determined in the interests of patients.
Andy Burnham
Well, the right hon. Gentleman is accepting it, and he continues to dispute my evidence, but what does he say to the president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, who said yesterday of cataract restrictions:
“They are arbitrary and are a response to financial pressures, not clinical needs”?
The reason for the Government’s denial is that the financial pressures are greater than they care to admit. The figures released by the Treasury yesterday confirmed that he and the Government have now cut the NHS budget for two years running, but they also reveal something else: another real-terms cut planned for 2013-14. Do not their flagship promises on NHS spending now lie in shreds, and will this Prime Minister not be for ever remembered as the man who cut the NHS, not the deficit?
Mr Lansley
It is staggering, isn’t it? In 2010-11, the NHS budget was set by the right hon. Gentleman, not by us. The final accounts for 2011-12 will not be published until the autumn. I wish he would just get up at the Dispatch Box and admit that over the course of this Parliament the coalition Government will increase the NHS budget in England by 1.8% in real terms, which is £12.5 billion in cash, whereas the Wales Audit Office has said that a Labour Government in Wales will cut the NHS budget over the same period by 10% in real terms.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to bring forward legislative proposals on the funding of social care.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
15. What steps he is taking to bring forward legislative proposals on the funding of social care.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The draft Care and Support Bill contains clauses that support our commitment to introduce a universal deferred payments scheme and a national eligibility threshold. We have set out our intention to base a new funding model on the principles of the Dilnot commission model and we will take a decision in the next spending review.
Mrs Glindon
Last week the Secretary of State dismissed the concerns of Labour MPs about councils being hard pressed to find funds to implement any of the proposals. The Local Government Association stated that there was no money. Will the Minister now commit to legislation in this Parliament to sort out the funding of social care at local level?
Paul Burstow
It does not need legislation to sort out the amount of money that goes into social services; it does need legislation, however, to put in place a universal deferred payments scheme. We have made it clear that we will fully fund the commitment that we have already announced and we will work with the Local Government Association and others on its detailed design and implementation.
Barbara Keeley
The verdict of the Care and Support Alliance on the delay in introducing legislation to reform social care funding is this:
“Each day of delay condemns greater numbers of older and disabled people to the risk of isolation and neglect,”
trapping people in hospital and pushing many more carers to “breaking point”. Just when will the Government realise the damage done by delaying the decision to do anything about funding social care?
Paul Burstow
In fact, in October 2010 this Government took an important decision about the funding of social care: to invest an extra £7.2 billion. I wish Opposition Members would stop running local authorities down and support the ones that are doing the right thing and ensuring that they spend the money the Government have provided to them on social care, rather than cutting those services. That is what I am doing; I hope that the hon. Lady will as well. I just wish that she had prefaced her comments by apologising for 13 years of Labour failure on social care.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement today and the announcements last week about the future structure and the commitment to introduce legislation later in this Parliament in line with the draft Bill. Will he confirm that it is the Government’s intention to pursue the cross-party talks on funding options for the Dilnot package, and that if solutions can be found, they can be included in the legislation that is introduced?
Paul Burstow
Notwithstanding some of the perhaps intemperate exchanges we have in this place, my colleagues and I are still determined, if those on the Opposition Front Bench are, to engage in talks on how we reform the funding system. Indeed, the debate we had in the Chamber last night confirmed that both sides of the House wish to support the principles of the Dilnot reforms, so I hope that we can have such talks and that they can be reflected in the Bill.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to support the provision of free and fully integrated end-of-life care. While the palliative care funding pilots are progressing, can lessons be learnt quickly in my borough of Enfield where, sadly, most people are dying in hospital rather than, as is their choice, at home or with the support of local hospices?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just last week we published the world’s first ever survey of bereaved people’s experiences of the end-of-life care received by loved ones. It revealed quite stark variations from one part of the country to another, and will prove a valuable tool in driving up performance of areas that are not doing well by families in end-of-life care. As for the White Paper, we have said clearly that we are committed to doubling funding for the pilots to ensure that we have the data to take decisions about the introduction of free personal care when it comes to end of life.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Opposition Members are genuine in our desire to reach cross-party consensus on the funding of social care. Will the Minister demonstrate his Government’s seriousness by agreeing to include Treasury Ministers directly in the cross-party talks, as Labour has offered to do from the start?
Paul Burstow
Talks that start with lots of preconditions are not going to be very good talks to start with. The Government always retain the responsibility for making decisions about taxation and spending priorities. We set out our position last week on the Dilnot Commission, and we now have a clear basis for talks, as those on both sides of the House seem to agree on the principles of Dilnot as the basis for reform.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the performance of the NHS in 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
At the beginning of this month, I laid my first annual report before the House setting out the achievements of the health service in 2011-12. The report showed that the NHS had continued to maintain or improve all the key performance standards while delivering unprecedented efficiency savings and a strong financial out-turn. That is a testament to the achievements of all NHS staff.
Chris Kelly
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the numbers of people waiting over 18 weeks, over 26 weeks and over 52 weeks for treatment are now at their lowest-ever levels—lower than when Labour was in office? Will he also confirm that that gives the lie to Labour’s claims that waiting lists are increasing?
Mr Lansley
Yes; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When we came into office, something like 209,000 people had waited over 18 weeks. We have reduced that figure to 160,000. The number waiting over a year was nearly 19,000, and we have brought that down to below 5,000. I remind Opposition Members that in Wales the target for the number waiting more than 26 weeks has not been met—the figure stands at 6%, whereas in England it is 2.2%.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
In regard to improving cancer outcomes, will the Secretary of State consider using some of the underspend in the cancer drugs fund to allow improved access to advanced radiotherapy?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because it allows me to confirm that the annual report states that the NHS has met all the cancer waiting time standards, and that we in England have provided for 12,500 patients to have access, through the cancer drugs fund, to cancer drugs that they would not otherwise have been able to have. It is a matter of regret that a similar cancer drugs fund is not available for exceptional treatments in Wales.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
What part or percentage of the £5.8 billion efficiency savings can be attributed to the salary freeze alone?
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend in order to convey the precise figure. From my recollection, I believe that the bulk of the £5.8 billion efficiency savings—£2.8 billion—was in the acute sector. As most of the acute sector’s costs are pay costs, the pay freeze will have contributed a significant part of that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State accept that some of those so-called efficiency savings are totally counter-productive? Despite Ministers’ claims to be saving money on agency staff, is not the truth that hospitals’ attempts to improve their efficiency have backfired, with jobs being cut and agency staff being hired at rates as high as £1,600 a day?
Mr Lansley
No, I will not accept any such thing. We are aiming to reduce agency staffing costs in the NHS under QIPP—the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme—by £300 million, and we have already made a reduction of more than £120 million. Since the election, in complete contrast to the situation beforehand, we have reduced the number of administrative staff in the NHS by 15,000, including a reduction of more than 6,000 managers. We have also increased the number of clinical staff by 4,000 since the election.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of care provided in residential and nursing homes.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to improve social care services.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The White Paper introduces new measures to help us to deliver better quality services and to improve the care that people experience, including through greater transparency, with new provider quality profiles and new care audits. It also clarifies what quality in care and support means, by setting out principles, standards, roles and responsibilities for driving up the quality of care. The White Paper makes it clear that we will rule out crude commissioning by the minute, which turns care workers into clock-watchers, and that we will work with commissioners, care providers and people who use services and carers in order to bring to an end commissioning practices that undermine people’s dignity and choice.
Andrew Selous
I recently visited Ashton Lodge residential home in Dunstable, and I was delighted to hear from the residents how kind the staff were. Occasionally, however, I get letters from constituents detailing simply unacceptable levels of care for their family in residential homes. How can we involve local communities more so they take a role in ensuring that all residential homes have consistently high standards of care?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful for that question. Indeed, one of the issues set out in the White Paper is the collaboration by the Department of Health and others with leaders in the care sector to make sure that care homes become much more embedded as part of their local communities and much more genuinely open to their local communities—working with local schools and working with HealthWatch, which will have powers of entry to work with those care homes as well. By turning the spotlight on in a benign way, making sure that all care homes are more open to their public, I think we can significantly improve quality.
Laura Sandys
In parallel with the social care budget, do the Government see a strong role for GPs to look at prevention—putting in special monitoring as people get older to ensure that we stay younger and fitter for longer?
Paul Burstow
Indeed we do. We identify in the White Paper the fact that there has been a postcode lottery for many years when it comes to access to primary care in our care home sector. The White Paper sets out how to ensure that we begin to eradicate that postcode lottery. By establishing a national commissioning board to commission primary care, we can ensure greater consistency in the future.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in Northern Ireland in respect of protecting the high standards of residential and nursing care that already exist for the people in Northern Ireland?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Indeed, officials in my Department are in close contact with officials in all the devolved Administrations to make sure that we share best practice across the nations so that we drive up the quality of care for all.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Only last week, the Secretary of State said about care:
“The…number of delayed discharges is broadly the same as it was last year and, I believe, from memory, the year before—I will correct the record if not.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 322.]
Figures published by his own Department show the number of delayed days is up by 18% in the last year and 29% since August 2010. Are Ministers completely out of touch with reality, or would the Minister now like to correct the record?
Paul Burstow
Of course what the hon. Gentleman omits to mention in seeking to give an impression is this: the implication is that social services are not coping with delayed discharges and are the principal cause of them, but the figures do not bear that proposition out. [Interruption.] Indeed, the extra investment the Government are making in reablement services means that discharges in this area are being assisted and improving—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question has been asked, and the Minister is giving his answer. Members may like it or dislike it, but they have a duty to listen to it with courtesy. While I am about it, let me emphasise that there is far too much sedentary noise coming from both Front-Bench teams. I think that the Minister has finished his answer; we are grateful to him.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What assessment he has made of the availability of insulin pumps for young diabetics.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
We are currently undertaking a national audit to give us a clear picture of provision of pump services in England. This will be published shortly. The rapid response survey for 2010-11 suggests that half of all those eligible for a pump in England already have one, or have funding agreed—a significant improvement on the initial survey in 2010.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that Nicola Sturgeon, the Health Minister in the devolved Administration at Edinburgh, announced earlier this year that all the under-18s requiring an insulin pump would get one. My constituent 13-year-old Fiona Clark has been told by Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow that she will have to wait an unspecified time to receive the pump her doctors say she needs. Given that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence estimates the standard benchmark rate for the uptake of insulin pump therapy for type 1 diabetes in England is 12.4%, will the Minister offer his Department’s assistance to help those in Scotland to get above the current paltry 3.1% uptake?
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but as he will appreciate as a Scottish Member of Parliament, this is a devolved responsibility for the Scottish Government. On the specific issue—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) would shut up, it would be helpful. It would probably be useful if the hon. Gentleman raised the specific issue with the Scottish Government, but on the general principle let me say that we are determined, certainly in England, to do all we can through education, the workings of the NHS and the operating framework to ensure that the number of people receiving pumps increases, as it already has in the last two years.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
6. How many children received milk through the nursery milk scheme in each of the last three years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
In 2009-10, the number of portions funded was 218 million. In 2010-11 it was 262 million, and in 2011-12 it was 271 million. Of course, children do not necessarily attend nursery five days a week, so the number of portions does not equate to the number of children, so, say, 1 million children attending full- time or 2 million attending 2.5 days a week.
Diana Johnson
In Hull the nursery milk scheme has never been more needed, at a time when poverty is increasing and food banks are expanding. Will the Minister guarantee that no child who currently receives nursery school milk will lose out after the results of the consultation have been published?
Anne Milton
As the hon. Lady will know, we are consulting on a range of options to modernise the operation of the scheme. The cost rose to £53 million in 2010-11, and is due to rise to about £67 million in 2012-13. Given those massive increases, we need to look at the scheme’s operation to ensure that we are getting good value for money.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
10. Does the Minister accept that the cost may well have risen because more children are receiving free milk? Because the consultation is being launched during the school holidays, it will be extremely difficult for schools to respond. If this is a genuine consultation which aims to ensure that milk reaches the children who need it, will the Minister consider extending the deadline into September and October?
Anne Milton
The consultation has been running for some time now, and I should have thought that local authorities in particular would have had plenty of time in which to respond. Given that 8,962 settings are paying more than 90p for a pint, which is an outrageous amount, it is extremely important for us to hear from everyone. If the hon. Lady feels that there has been any problem with responses to the consultation and would like to drop me a line, I shall be happy to respond.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to reduce health inequalities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established the first legal duties to reduce health inequalities for national health service commissioners and for the Secretary of State. Both the NHS and public health outcomes frameworks will have a strong focus on reducing inequalities in access to health services, and on inequalities in the health outcomes of the population as a whole.
Mark Menzies
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the inequalities in diagnoses of dementia around the country. What steps has he taken to reduce that variation in diagnosis rates?
Mr Lansley
As I think my hon. Friend will know from recently published data, some of the pilot work involving general practices demonstrated that it was possible to increase substantially the number of patients diagnosed with dementia. I believe that during the pilot period there was an increase of two thirds, more than 60%, in the number diagnosed. As part of the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge, we are using quality incentives in the NHS to identify and refer patients who are admitted to hospital with potential dementia in order to improve their diagnosis and treatment. We hope that that and other measures will identify more of those whose dementia is at an early stage, and will also assist their treatment.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
One of the key elements in the tackling of inequality is funding. The funds allocated to the clinical commissioning groups was set out in the operating framework, which related to GPs’ patient lists. It has now been changed to take account of data from the Office for National Statistics. Will the Secretary of State assure me that deprived areas will not lose out on the funds allocated to CCGs—not the per-head funds, but the funds allocated to CCGs as a result of the change?
Mr Lansley
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we will publish the allocations for 2013-14 later this year. However, we are ensuring, I think rightly, that the allocations to clinical commissioning groups for NHS services reflect the population, because they have a responsibility for the whole population. Some parts of the country, particularly London, have substantial unregistered populations, which often include the groups who are most at risk.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of his important initiatives that could reduce health inequalities is the development of personal care budgets, which give real power and choices to patients, and also have the potential to reduce hospital admissions and costs?
Mr Lansley
Yes, since the election we have pushed forward with offering access to a personal care budget to those who are in receipt of care and support. At the time of the last election, about 168,000 people were exercising that right. The figure now is over 432,000, and we are extending the scheme so that, for example, people in receipt of continuing health care through the NHS will not lose the opportunity for personal care when the NHS takes over that responsibility; instead, that will continue as a personal budget under the NHS.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State think any of the steps he set out in his original answer will lead to a repeat of the shock rise in the number of cancelled operations in the local hospitals serving my constituents, the figures for which were recently set out in a written answer to me by his Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns)?
Mr Lansley
The number of cancelled operations rises at certain times during the winter, and it did so during last winter. We are clear about the necessity of ensuring that patients do not have cancelled operations if we can avoid that, and, in particular, that those whose operations are cancelled have access to treatment rapidly thereafter. The key is to make sure, as we have done, that patients have timely access to treatment under the referral to treatment times guidelines, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the average waiting time for treatment in the NHS has fallen since the election, as has the number of people waiting a long time for treatment. That is the strongest measure for ensuring all patients get timely to access to care.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
8. How many patients attended the accident and emergency department at Wythenshawe hospital in the last 12 months for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Department does not collect data on accident and emergency attendances at hospital level. These data are only available at trust level. In the 12 months up to 8 July 2012, there were 108,393 accident and emergency attendances at University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I am sure he will want to join me in thanking the staff at Wythenshawe A and E department, particularly given that that colossal number of 108,000 attendances has taken place in a unit originally designed for 70,000 patients. However, if the A and E department at Trafford general hospital is closed, as is currently proposed, that would lead to a still greater increase in the number of patients at Wythenshawe A and E. Given that, is it not essential that the £11.5 million that will be required for extra facilities at Wythenshawe should be made available?
Mr Burns
I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not disappointed, but I cannot add anything to the answer I gave in the debate we had last week when he asked that specific question. I can assure him, however, that local commissioners have assessed the impact of the proposed changes at the Trafford and other hospitals, including Wythenshawe. The plans are still at an early stage and are yet to go to public consultation, and I have been informed that local commissioners will continue to review the impact of these changes on the other hospitals, including Wythenshawe. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, other Members whose constituencies are in the area and their constituents to contribute fully to the consultation process.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister knows that the proposal is, first, to reduce services at the Trafford to urgent care provision and then, within not less than two to three years, to a minor injuries unit. What processes will be put in place to ensure that the most stringent criteria are applied in respect of investment in Wythenshawe and the other hospitals, as well as in Trafford community services and improved services to patients, before any such further move is contemplated?
Mr Burns
As the hon. Lady will be aware from the debate we had last week, these proposals are subject to the consultation process and to consideration of the results. Commissioners fully recognise the need to minimise the impact the changes will have on neighbouring A and E departments and other services. The Trafford and South Manchester clinical commissioning groups are working on developing further integrated care services, and on developing community care services as an alternative to hospital care, as well as on ensuring that the final decisions meet the needs of the local health economy by providing first-class quality care for the people of that area.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Of course, it is not just Wythenshawe A and E that is facing difficulties. All Members throughout the House are grateful for the work our medical professionals do in extremely trying circumstances, but the truth is that the Government’s chaotic reorganisation has resulted in longer waits in accident and emergency. The Minister of State said last night that A and E departments were meeting the target, but figures published by his Department last week show that the Government have failed to meet the 95% target across major type 1 A and E units. If he cannot get his own figures right, he cannot expect to command the trust of patients or medical professionals. Will he now take this opportunity to show some respect for this House, for the public and for patients in general, and correct the record?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just explain that the Minister did not widen the parameters of the exchange and therefore they should not be widened, so he is perfectly within his rights, if he wishes, to focus his reply on Wythenshawe. I hope he is not going to be too disappointed. We’ll give it a go.
Mr Burns
I am most grateful.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is playing with the figures. As he knows from previous discussions, he is talking about the SITREP—situation report—figures, which do not form the basis of the figures the Government use. [Interruption.] If he will keep quiet for a minute and listen, I will reiterate the point I made last night. Regarding A and E waits of under four hours and the percentile of 95, we are at 96%, which means we are within and above the level set down by the Government’s figures.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
11. What plans he has to review the health allocation formula.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation is reviewing the allocation of resources for the NHS through clinical commissioning groups, and for local authorities in relation to their future public health responsibilities. ACRA’s interim recommendations on the preferred distribution of public health resources were published on 14 June. The NHS formula will be published in due course. The draft mandate for the NHS Commissioning Board makes it clear that it should provide resources to secure equal access for equal need.
David Mowat
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. It is becoming increasingly clear that ageing is a key driver of health care costs, yet the ACRA formula currently does not properly take that into account, to the detriment of towns such as Warrington. Can he confirm that under the new formula, ageing will be more prominent?
Mr Lansley
Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, under the existing formula, age was the single biggest factor, but what is important is that the formula accurately reflects the factors that will give rise to need for health care, so that the allocation of resources can respond directly to that need. Ensuring separately that there is an allocation to local authorities for public health, which will be measured in relation to mortality below the age of 75 in particular, will enable those resources separately to be focused on, for example, areas of greatest deprivation which give rise to the poorest health outcomes.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I am interested to hear the Secretary of State say that he understands there is a link between deprivation and health inequality, in light of the new funding arrangements that seem to indicate that councils in the north-east will receive £17 per head less for public health, whereas councils in wealthier parts of the country will receive £8 per head more.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that I have said many times that deprivation can give rise to inequalities in health outcomes. In particular, we are improving substantially the framework for reducing those health inequalities, because we are giving local authorities specific, dedicated resources. Let me make it clear to her that under the public health allocation formula that I outlined just a few weeks ago, no part of the country will see any reduction in its public health resources from the baseline established.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effect on residential care providers of reductions in local authorities’ budgets.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Local authorities choose how best to use their funding; however, the levels of residential care provision are not determined solely by local council social care budgets. The supply of care home places is governed principally by demand from both public commissioners, such as local councils and the NHS, and private purchasers of services.
Julie Hilling
Nine out of 10 residential home providers say that low council fees are creating a two-tier system, as new investment is directed at wealthier areas where there are more people who can self-fund, and 82% of those providers say that self-funders are being charged more to cross-subsidise local authority-funded residents. This clearly is not fair, so what is the Minister going to do to rectify the situation?
Paul Burstow
We know from the most recent survey published by Laing and Buisson that there has been a 1.4% increase in the fees paid this year, compared with no increase last year. We also know that there is a surplus of places, which accounts for about 10% of the total number of bed places available in care homes up and down the country. So there is actually space, and it is entirely appropriate for local authorities to negotiate appropriate prices to provide good-quality care from one locality to another.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Following the census announcement yesterday that there are elderly hot spots, including North Yorkshire, will this is be a good opportunity for the Minister and the Government to review health and social care funding to reflect a growing elderly population in sparsely populated, isolated rural areas such as North Yorkshire?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those issues and the emerging findings from the survey. It is important to say that data will be a key consideration in how the next spending review is shaped, along with the priorities that the Government will give to different demographic pressures as a result.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
13. What recent representations he has received on the reconfiguration of children's heart services.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I have received representations about the review of children’s heart services via letters, parliamentary questions and e-mails from hon. Members, via letters and e-mails from organisations and the public, and via meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received two overview scrutiny committee referrals, one from the Yorkshire and Humber joint health and overview scrutiny committee and one from the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Mr Burns
The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that we certainly believe so, but these are matters for the joint committee of primary care trusts, which carried out this review. As he will appreciate, it is totally independent from the Department of Health, and rightly so.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns in Yorkshire about the review. Can he confirm to us, for the sake of absolute clarity, with whom this decision will lie finally?
Mr Burns
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; this is the hors d’oeuvre before the main meal later today. Ultimately, if any overview and scrutiny committees of relevant local authorities do not agree with the final decisions, they have a right to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to refer the matter, with their concerns, to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. If it is asked to look into the matter, it will then come to a conclusion, of which it will inform my right hon. Friend and he will then take a decision.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Scottish Government have decided that although the Yorkhill unit is currently unsafe, it can be made safe in the context of three surgeons doing 300 operations, whereas the “Safe and Sustainable” review, which is increasingly discredited, is demanding 400 to 500 operations. Why is it one rule for children in Scotland and another for children in Yorkshire?
Mr Burns
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the decisions that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Health Department might take with regard to Glasgow is a matter for them. The fact is that we recognise what is commonly accepted among the international community: that the safest way of providing that surgery is by carrying out about 400 operations a year.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that confidentiality agreements do not discourage NHS whistleblowers from coming forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
The Department wrote to the NHS trusts most recently in January 2012 reminding them that compromise agreements should not prevent information from being disclosed in the public interest. It also said that they should satisfy themselves that their organisational policies are in line with previously issued guidance.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware of the case of my constituent Mr Gary Walker, the former chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, who has been prevented by a confidentiality agreement from raising his concerns about the effect on patient safety of the previous Government’s targets. I want to hear Mr Walker’s concerns and my constituents are entitled to hear them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look into this matter and give a categorical assurance that the concerns that Mr Walker has told us about will come into the public domain.
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his supplementary question. I cannot comment on the individual details of the case, but I appreciate his concern that NHS staff could be prevented from speaking out by confidentiality agreements. Confidentiality and compromise agreements are allowed in contracts, but the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides that any clause in that contract or compromise agreement between employer and employee is void in so far as it acts to stop the employee making a protected disclosure.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the proliferation of new bodies being created to deliver NHS services, including a number of private sector organisations, can the Minister be confident that the NHS constitution protects whistleblowers working for private companies but delivering NHS public services?
Anne Milton
I assure the hon. Lady that all must have regard to the NHS constitution. In fact, we issued guidance to NHS organisations that all contracts of employment should cover whistleblowing rights. In September 2010, we amended terms and conditions of service and guidance to the NHS on supporting and taking action on concerns raised by staff. The changes made to the NHS constitution make very clear the rights and responsibilities of NHS staff and their employers in respect of whistleblowing. As I have pointed out, all those providing services on behalf of the NHS must have due regard to the NHS constitution.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
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.
Laura Sandys
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Two of my local dentists have been closed as a result of an Office of Fair Trading investigation. Although that is totally understandable and nothing to do with the NHS, will the Secretary of State confirm to my constituents that they will have access to NHS-funded dentists? There happen to be more NHS-funded dentists in this country now than there were under the previous Government.
Mr Lansley
I think I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are committed to increasing access to NHS dentistry, and over 1.1 million more patients have been seen by an NHS dentist since May 2010 than before the election. Nationally, there are more dentists. In 2010-11, there were 22,799 compared with 22,003 in the preceding year, before the election. NHS Kent and Medway has confirmed that it will have six dentists in place from 1 September 2012 who will temporarily provide the treatment that she is looking for, and it has started tendering processes to commission permanent NHS dental services in her area.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
T2. The Minister will be aware of the 500% increase in the use of antidepressants over the past 20 years. I welcome the announcement of the hundreds of millions that will be spent on talking therapies over the next few years, but will the Minister tell us specifically what funding has been allocated for mindfulness, which is the best known treatment for repeat episode depression?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He has been a doughty campaigner and pursuer of this issue and I can tell him that a number of improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—services are developing and using mindfulness-based approaches. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, NICE recommends them for the treatment of recurrent depression. A number of randomised controlled trials are going on to see how it might be applied to other long-term health conditions. There is baseline allocated funding but there is no specific earmarked funding for this particular project other than in the context of the IAPT programme, in which we have invested £400 million.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
T6. Yesterday’s figures showed a 17% increase in the population of Milton Keynes over the past 10 years, the highest outside London or Manchester, and an unexpected increase of some 4,000 over the estimate in the past 12 months. May I seek the Secretary of State’s reassurance that that will be reflected in future health care budgets for the city?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will, I hope, have understood from previous exchanges, the focus on the delivery of care to the resident population in an area covered by a clinical commissioning group will mean that we try, as far as possible, to align resources with the needs of a whole population rather than with just the practice-registered population.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. The Government often talk about reducing the number of managers in the health service to defend the front line, but following my recent meeting with my local representative from the Royal College of Nursing, can the Secretary of State confirm that under the Government’s definition a ward sister at band 7, who has a hugely important front-line role, is actually considered a manager?
Mr Lansley
If a member of staff is professionally qualified, they will be counted against the number of managers part of the overall work force census. It remains true, as we have said, that since the election we have reduced the number of managers in the NHS by more than 6,000 and increased the number of clinical staff by more than 4,000.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T7. Last year’s National Audit Office report highlighted inconsistencies in the care of patients with neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, which neurology networks could address. When will the Government publish their review, announced last September, of clinical networks in the national health service, and will it offer any hope for Parkinson’s patients?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The NHS Commissioning Board is currently conducting a review of the effectiveness of clinical networks, and the scope for expanding them. It includes examining the case for neurological clinical networks, and a report should be published very soon.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T4. In yesterday’s debate, when talking about the south-west consortium, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) emphasised the need for negotiations and agreement with staff. Does the Secretary of State not think it was shocking that staff found out only through a series of freedom of information requests that the consortium existed, and can he tell me when the Department of Health first found out about the consortium?
Mr Lansley
I will gladly write to the hon. Lady about when we were first aware of the consortium. I think it was several weeks ago; indeed, the document referred to prominently in the press on Sunday had been on websites for some weeks, so there is nothing new about that. We knew about it. I reiterate the point that I and my right hon. Friend made yesterday: even though under a Labour Government, in the 2006 legislation, powers were given to trusts to take their own decisions on the employment of staff, they must do so in negotiation with the staff side. We would expect that. From my point of view, the South West Pay Consortium is rightly looking to maximise flexibility, but I have made it clear to the pay review body that we believe that the flexibility it needs can be delivered through negotiations and “Agenda for Change”. It will not and should not require the reduction of pay for staff.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
T9. The clinician-led “Better Services Better Value” review has condemned the accident and emergency unit, and the maternity and children’s wards at St Helier hospital, because it expects out-of-hospital services to be expanded instead. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss local concerns that the £5 million allocated to provide the out-of-hospital services will be totally inadequate to the task?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. As he knows, any proposals for service changes will be subject to the Secretary of State’s four tests and a full three-month public consultation across south-west London, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents will take part in. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
T8. In the north-east region, there is one neuromuscular care adviser providing dedicated specialist care and support for more than 3,000 people with muscular dystrophy and associated conditions. Will the Minister give assurances that care advisers will continue to be funded and commissioned at specialist NHS Commissioning Board level so that they can carry on supporting community teams across the country?
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
T10. I commend the Government for their plans to improve the care and support system, especially for an ageing population. How will the changes make a real difference to carers, particularly those supporting people with Alzheimer’s and dementia? Is there more we can do to support them?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She is right: we have to do as much as we possibly can to recognise and support family carers. In the White Paper, we have set out a number of steps, not least investment of £400 million to fund more breaks for carers. We are working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to make sure that they are more aware of carers and can identify more carers. We are doing work to make sure we have earlier, quicker diagnosis in more areas of dementia so that people get the support they need. Most important of all, we are making sure that hospitals, as part of the services they provide for people with dementia, actually deliver on NICE guidance on supporting family members. Finally, the Government are legislating, for the first time ever, on support for the needs of carers.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the views of clinicians, and scientists from academia, industry and the third sector, on the impact of change on the development of stratified medicines?
Mr Lansley
I have the benefit of a review undertaken by Sir John Bell and his colleagues, which I accepted wholeheartedly. In particular, I immediately agreed with the recommendations, and we are implementing and funding recommendations for the establishment of centres across the NHS for genetic testing to support stratified medicine for cancer patients.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Further to the Secretary of State’s welcome response to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and his comments yesterday on the issue of the south-west consortium in relation to pay reductions, will he apply the same attitude to pay and conditions, particularly backward or downward regradings and other detrimental changes to terms and conditions?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, trusts and NHS employers are responsible for the terms and conditions of their staff, and for ensuring, as “Agenda for Change” intends to, that staff who effectively have the same knowledge and competences have the same pay banding, wherever they happen to be across the country. That is the objective of “Agenda for Change”. As I said yesterday, and will continue to say, “Agenda for Change” can be improved—we made that clear to the pay review body—but we think it is possible, if the staff side works with us, to enhance “Agenda for Change” and increase its flexibilities, so that NHS employers can recruit, retain and motivate their staff, with local flexibility, in a national pay framework.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Given that every year, 1.2 million admissions to accident and emergency units are alcohol-fuelled, when will the Government help the NHS and legislate for a minimum alcohol unit price?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with the alcohol strategy and has read it in detail. It is one of the things that we need to do. Brief interventions, specialised treatment, the NHS alcohol check and, of course, changes to licensing will all make a difference. As I say, the alcohol strategy, a cross-Government document, is out. We will respond further in due course.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Last week, the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust cleared an important milestone towards becoming a foundation trust. An historical debt remains, largely as a result of punitive accounting measures under Gordon Brown. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do everything that he can to ensure that when the Royal Cornwall becomes a foundation trust, it is debt-free?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady was referring to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). For future reference, we do not refer to Members of the House by name.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, know that an application for foundation trust status from the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust is currently being considered by my Department. The trust is being assessed on whether it meets the quality, service, performance, business strategy, finance and governance standards required if a trust is to be an FT. Once the trust has demonstrated that it has met those standards in all other regards, the Department will ensure that any outstanding liquidity issues are resolved in time for the trust to be authorised as an FT. The process of assessing FT applications will ensure that any remaining debt carried by the trust when it becomes a foundation trust is affordable within the trust’s forward plans.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The chair of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust has written to the Secretary of State to correct inaccurate information given out by the Department of Health regarding the trust’s performance. [Interruption.] Instead of barracking me, would the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me now, it is a shame that the Secretary of State did not meet the local MPs when he had the opportunity. Will he distance himself from the false information put out by unattributable sources in his Department, which will undermine the performance of the hospital and shows little respect for the health service workers who are working to improve services?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is, frankly, too much noise on both sides of the House. It does not suit the Minister now for the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) to shout from a sedentary position, and I absolutely understand, similarly, that it does not suit Opposition Members when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues chunter from a sedentary position. Let us have a truce, and the right hon. Gentleman can be a statesman—we look forward to it.
Mr Burns
As ever. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the interpretation of what has happened with regard to the trust’s performance. There has been an historic problem with its performance, but I pay tribute to the staff, who have made tremendous efforts to improve performance, and have achieved some improvement. The trouble is that it is not sustainable not to put the trust on a sustainable financial footing. The hon. Gentleman said that he would like a meeting with me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] As he will know, if he keeps quiet for a minute, I have written to him offering a meeting with my right hon. Friend, on 24 July; I hope that the hon. Gentleman can attend.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Cases of blood poisoning from E. coli have increased by nearly 400% in the past 20 years, and E. coli resistance to antibiotics is almost certainly linked to record levels of antibiotic usage on factory farms. By over-using antibiotics we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. Will the Department put pressure on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs finally to take that issue seriously?
Mr Lansley
I understand the issues. Indeed, I was interested to see analysis some years ago of the extent of antibiotic resistance in hospitals in the Netherlands. Resistance was clearly much more prevalent in parts of Friesland where there was much greater antibiotic usage in farming. I therefore completely understand, and my colleagues in DEFRA understand this too. Just as we are looking for the responsible and appropriate prescribing of antibiotics in the health service, my colleagues feel strongly about the proper use of antibiotics in farming.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
When the national advisory council of the Thalidomide Trust recently met Government representatives, no funding undertakings were available on the replacement of the health support grant for sufferers. When can we expect a meaningful commitment in that regard, and is the Department liaising with its devolved counterparts?
Paul Burstow
Yes, we are liaising with the devolved Administrations. Yes, we had a productive meeting with the trust and the council, which confirmed that they will shortly submit to us the second-year evaluation of the pilot programme. I undertook to look at that carefully and enter into further discussions with a view to reaching a conclusion and making further announcements this autumn.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Ministers may recall the concern of patients and carers in the New Forest area about the decision to close a third of acute adult mental health beds in Hampshire. Are Ministers aware of a similar trend in other parts of the country, and if they are, as they should be, what do they think about it?
Mr Burns
My hon. Friend has raised that issue in different forms on many occasions, and feels strongly about it. The decision to reconfigure services in his constituency was made locally, and the Hampshire overview and scrutiny committee decided not to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking him to refer it to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, because it presumably believes that it is the right way forward to continue to provide first-class quality care for patients.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that commissioners in Cumbria must bear their share of responsibility for the deep-seated problems in the Morecambe Bay health trust, which have taken far too long to address. Will he join me in urging those commissioners to protect services such as Barrow’s maternity unit in their forthcoming review?
Mr Lansley
As we have seen in a number of instances over the years in the NHS, all those responsible should always be aware that, although the responsibility for quality may be, in the first instance, for the board of a trust, it is also the responsibility of those who commission the services. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one of the key considerations for the future in the development of services is for the NHS to respond to the commissioning intentions of local commissioners. Clearly, the matter that he raised will be determined locally as regards what commissioners require in terms of services from Morecambe Bay trust.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to Ministers and all colleagues, but as usual, demand has exceeded supply. I am sorry to disappoint some colleagues but we must now move on.
Access to Homeopathic Medicines
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Homeopathic medicines deliver a health care option to many people, including in my constituency. For many of them, the issue relates to freedom and personal choice.
The petition I present is from people in my constituency who are concerned that section 10 of the consolidated Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should remain unchanged. I believe the Government are not willing at this stage to agree a change, but a marker needs to be put down. A small but well co-ordinated group with an anti-homeopathy agenda must be resisted by MPs and by Government. Choice on access to homeopathic medicines is paramount, and it must be retained and enshrined by Government. The petition requests that the status quo continue.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the citizens of the UK.
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about proposed changes to the Medicines Act that may restrict access to homeopathic medicine.
Wherefore your Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that any changes to the Medicine Act allow greater freedom to homeopathic practitioners to dispense remedies.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001112]
Defence Equipment and Support
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call Alison Seabeck to ask the urgent question, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear from the outset that I intend to conclude supplementary questioning no later than half an hour after the start of the UQ. Brevity by all concerned should enable all those who wish to contribute to do so.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the future of Defence Equipment and Support.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
A key element in the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence is that of its equipment and support activities through the matériel strategy. Reforming the acquisition system to drive better value from the defence budget is a core element of the process. This will require changes to Defence Equipment and Support to ensure that the organisation has the structures, management and skills it needs to provide the right equipment to our armed forces at the right time and at the right cost. Change is essential to tackle the legacy problems in defence acquisition that have historically led to cost and schedule overruns and have resisted previous attempts at reform.
The current system does not help or support DE&S properly, and it is not delivering value for money for the taxpayer. Bernard Gray’s analysis reveals the following root causes: first, an historically overheated equipment programme in which far more projects were planned than could be paid for; secondly, a weak interface between DE&S and the wider Ministry of Defence, with poor discipline and change control between those setting requirements for equipment and those delivering the programmes; and, thirdly, insufficient levels of business capability at DE&S for the scale and complexity of the portfolio it is asked to deliver. The result of these combined issues has been significant additional costs in the defence budget in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year.
Earlier this year, MOD officials were asked to focus their efforts on considering the comparative benefits that could be derived from changing DE&S into an Executive non-departmental public body with a strategic partner from the private sector or a Government-owned, contractor-operated entity. The work done to date suggests that the strategic case for the GOCO option is stronger than that for the ENDPB option. Further value-for-money work is under way to confirm this assessment. In the meantime, as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, we have decided that the Department should focus its effort on further developing and testing the GOCO option.
The work to determine value for money between the options will take place over the next few months. In parallel, we will begin to develop a commercial strategy, engaging with industry to hone our requirement. This work will support decisions later this year on whether to proceed with the GOCO option and whether to launch a competition for a private sector management company to run the organisation. Provided that the further work demonstrates that the value-for-money case for GOCO over ENDPB is conclusive, this will be followed by an investment appraisal that will test the GOCO against a public sector comparator. Ultimately, this would be followed by a decision on whether to proceed.
Alison Seabeck
Let me be clear that there is massive consensus across this House that defence procurement must be tackled to ensure that some of the issues that plagued successive Governments are not repeated. We understand the budgetary challenges faced by the MOD and agree that procurement reform is essential to ensure financial sustainability.
It was therefore a huge surprise when yesterday the Secretary of State revealed in Defence questions that a decision had been made on the future of DE&S, but that no oral statement was planned and, indeed, that it was to be slipped out on the last day of Parliament. It was a bigger surprise, therefore, to read in the written statement that in their third year of government, no decision has yet been made by Ministers. The delay is as worrying as it is inexplicable. With the Gray review, the previous Government began the process of reform. It is now unclear when it will be completed. Will the Minister comment on the timing and confirm that primary legislation will be required for a GOCO?
The Government prefer the Government-owned, contractor-operated model, but it is unclear why. Will the Minister explain precisely why a GOCO is preferable to an NDPB? Are his Treasury colleagues content that the GOCO model offers value for money? Will he make a commitment to publish the full reasoning for the rejection of other models?
We fear that privatisation could weaken the public accountability and transparency of multi-billion-pound defence decision making. How would a GOCO be held publicly accountable? Who would be responsible for ensuring that contracts were delivered to time and to cost? We have seen recently with G4S that outsourcing does not guarantee efficiency or effectiveness, and can increase risk. Indeed, even with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games model, problems have arisen because Ministers have been distanced from the decision-making process and the lines of responsibility have been blurred. Such issues would be unacceptable when dealing with our armed forces.
Will the Minister say what will happen to existing contracts under the GOCO model? Crucially, those include the nuclear deterrent. Finally, what will the military’s role be in procurement under these plans? What guarantee can he give to the 20,000 people who are employed by DE&S that their jobs are not under threat?
The future of DE&S is not only about tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs in our defence industry, but, crucially, about the security of our nation. Getting it wrong would put lives at risk. It is vital that Parliament has a full opportunity to scrutinise these decisions.
Nick Harvey
May I correct the hon. Lady’s first proposition? It is clear that no decision has been made. A study is being carried out, which involves value-for-money work. If, when that appraisal is completed, we take this option forward, that is the point at which the decision will be made. Only when the model had been worked up and thoroughly tested would we finally take the decision to go ahead. Of course, we would come back to the House at that point.
The hon. Lady suggested that we had slipped this announcement out. I would say that the contrary is true. If the House had not been about to go into several weeks of recess, we would not necessarily have made a statement yet. We have done so to give the House the greatest possible transparency about what is going on and to send the clearest possible signal to the potential commercial partners that we are serious about this matter and are taking it forward. I stress that the decision about timings will be taken towards the end of this year. The commercial partner would be sought in a competition during the course of next year and a decision on whether to go ahead would be taken early in 2014.
The hon. Lady asked whether this model would include the nuclear component of defence. I remind her that the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston is a Government-owned, contractor-operated organisation, and that it works extremely well. The last Labour Government and previous Governments have made extensive use of the private sector in providing critical elements of our defence and other public services. I see no reason to believe that it would be any less capable of doing so in this area.
The GOCO option has looked better in the early explorations because if we stuck with an ENDPB, the work force and the management would remain in the public sector, and the greatest possible private sector involvement would be the use of a consultant. If we go for the GOCO option, the entity will have all the freedoms of a private sector operator: it will recruit people on private sector terms and conditions, and will have an incentive to make the thing work in a way that an ENDPB would not.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of such crucial importance that it is important that it should not become a party political plaything, and if it can be done in such a way as to attract the support of all sides of the House, the benefits that will flow from these changes will come sooner and they will flow much more copiously, and we will reach the sunlit uplands of wonderful defence procurement?
Nick Harvey
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth recalling that the previous Government asked Bernard Gray, a former Labour special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, to conduct his study of defence procurement. He came forward with a compelling and, to some extent, damning report. Central among his recommendations was the proposition that there should be a GOCO to run DE&S in the future.
We have now recruited Bernard Gray to be the Chief of Defence Matériel and given him the opportunity to go into further depth, and it has become increasingly clear that he was absolutely right. Of course these issues will have to be debated, and I have explained that the timelines are still quite long. No decisions have yet been taken, and proper value-for-money studies will continue.
To answer a question that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) asked, those studies will be made available for everybody to have a look at. This does not need to be a political football, and I hope it does not become one.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Where will these proposals leave the complex weapons contract, which has delivered such effective outcomes in Libya and provided top-class jobs and technology throughout the country, particularly in north-west England?
Nick Harvey
As far as I am concerned, the proposals will have no impact on that. The specific contracts to provide particular services and products will be unaffected by the changes. They will enable us to secure better value for money in future when we make further contracts on a variety of defence procurement issues.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Urgent operational requirement contracts have played an important part in recent years, but unlike with planned procurement the through-life costs are often not included in the initial costs. How will the through-life costs be accommodated in an overheated defence budget?
Nick Harvey
Decisions on whether any of the procurements that we made under the UOR process should be brought into the core defence programme will have to be taken individually in respect of each procurement. Some will be brought into the core programme, and at that point a full analysis of through-life costs will have to be made. Others, despite having performed well in theatre, will not be brought into the long-term defence programme. The type of scrutiny that my hon. Friend seeks will take place at that point.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
How will this decision, or lack of decision, affect existing contracts such as that for the A400M, on which many UK aerospace jobs rely?
Nick Harvey
It will have no impact on existing contracts. It is the means by which we will secure better value for money in forming future contracts.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister explain in a practical way how a complex and expensive equipment programme such as the future carriers would have been better carried out under the new arrangements? For example, somewhere along the line the idea that the carriers should be easily convertible to take catapults was left out of the design. Would that situation be improved by the new arrangements?
Nick Harvey
It is probably common ground throughout the House that defence procurement has not been an exemplar of success for a good many years. One reason for that is that despite the good work of good people working for DE&S, they do not have available to them the full range of skill sets that they need to negotiate on equal terms with some of the more complex providers. Granting DE&S the private sector freedoms I have described will enable it to take on board the necessary skill sets to ensure that in future negotiations and future project management there is a better match between those securing value for the taxpayer and good products for the armed forces and the private sector providers of complex programmes. That will be a marked improvement on how things have been in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the study that the Minister mentioned consider the procurement and purchasing of equipment alongside our allies and other countries, which could reduce costs?
Nick Harvey
It is certainly true that a lot of our procurement is done in a cohort with our allies, and as time goes forward I expect that to be increasingly the case. Having a Government defence equipment and support body with the freedom to operate in a quasi-private sector model will give us the best possible latitude to deal with a variety of allies that have differing models of defence arrangements.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
One of our allies is Australia. I urge the Minister to look to that country, where a Government-owned contractor-operated organisation seems to work successfully. Will he give me a guarantee that this Government, unlike the previous one, who gave away submarine engine orders to Germany, will ensure that contracts are let to British industry?
Nick Harvey
Of course, competition laws dictate the ability of any Government to grant contracts to onshore suppliers. Our first and foremost consideration is to equip the armed forces with what they need. Our second consideration is to ensure value for the taxpayer. If, having ticked both those boxes, it is possible to ensure a healthy and thriving defence industry in the UK, so much the better. We like to give contracts to British suppliers when possible, but there are competition laws and our hands are tied.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister proposes a procurement model that allows the Government to buy off the shelf from any company, whether or not it is British. He will be aware that BAE lost the Typhoon contract and that a French company has preferred-bidder status. If we are not prepared to give preferred-bidder status to British companies, why should other countries do so?
Nick Harvey
Clearly, it would be foolish not to consider buying things off the shelf that meet the requirements of the British armed forces. However, I repeat that clear competition laws determine the circumstances in which we can award preferred-bidder status. In many cases, we are unable to do so.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Can the Minister career-plan specialist officers who go into defence procurement, so that they can spend longer than two years—three or four years, perhaps—doing the job to improve the efficiency of the product?
Nick Harvey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Even under the proposed model, we will continue to have quite a lot of military personnel inside DE&S, which it needs to give it insight into the user requirement. I agree with my hon. Friend that short rotations have not served DE&S well. It would be to the benefit of both the individuals and the organisation if postings were for longer periods.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Thousands of jobs in Edinburgh rely on companies such as SELEX Galileo. What relationship will the new body have with such private sector companies?
Nick Harvey
The new body will have the same relationship as the existing one with suppliers of such products. The new body will contain a greater degree of private sector expertise, so it might be able to drive a harder bargain.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
We need to make the best use of the defence budget and give our armed forces the tools they need to do the job, but we must also protect sovereign capability and have a strategy on where we invest our research and development budgets. Does the Minister agree that deciding how we organise those two things is too important to be left to dogma?
Nick Harvey
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to maintain sovereign capabilities. I referred a moment ago to competition law, but when there are specific exemptions that enable us to protect national sovereignty for reasons of national security, we will take them. She is right on the research and technology budgets. They will remain an important part of our work. We cannot leave it entirely to the private sector to undertake primary research. It is necessary for the state to stimulate it.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Minister may know that I was present on 2 July at the royal opening of the new £75 million BAE System munitions factory in my constituency. It was built thanks to the innovative, 15-year munitions acquisition supply solution contract signed by the MOD back in 2008, and sustains more than 200 jobs. What will happen with such long-term contracts, which are so important to my constituency?
Nick Harvey
Nobody would suggest that everything that occurred under previous systems was not good. Clearly, there are exemplars—some contracts worked well. I am sure the facility in the hon. Lady’s constituency will be a great success and that it will support employment for many years to come, but the fact that we will have a more private sector-rooted procurement body will not have any negative impact on such contracts.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The shadow Minister spoke of the budgetary challenges facing all Governments, but was quick to gloss over her legacy—the budget was taken away from the MOD by Labour and given to the Treasury. Does the Minister share my surprise at Labour Members questioning the new avenues of efficiency when, if they looked at the National Audit Office major projects report 2010, they would see that the majority of major projects overran, including the A400M, the Astute and the Typhoon?
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was simply far too long. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is smirking about it—
Nick Harvey
There have undoubtedly been serious problems with the procurement side of the defence business for a very long time. The deficit in defence from two years ago was in very substantial part caused by the overheating of the procurement budget, but we have taken dramatic steps in the past couple of years to get the defence budget back into balance. The Treasury can see the progress we have made, but the steps we are proposing today will not be taken unless it is satisfied by the work on value for money that is currently taking place.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister has acknowledged, there have been long-standing problems in defence procurement. The Public Accounts Committee has taken a keen interest in the matter. Will he outline exactly what steps he is taking to ensure that the establishment of the GOCO model is well worked up, so that we do not have some of the problems that we have had with other procurement bodies in the past?
Nick Harvey
The hon. Lady makes a good point—that is why I was at pains to spell out at the outset that the process has some considerable way to go. Only when the work on value for money is completed will a decision be taken on whether we are going ahead in principle. At that stage, we will work the model up in detail and look for a competition with private sector partners. At the end of all of that, there will be a final testing, which must satisfy the Treasury, among others. That will be the point at which a decision to go forward will be taken. There is a long route to go.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that a key indicator of the success of either of the two models that he has described will be the attitude towards small and medium-sized enterprises in defence tendering in instruments such as pre-qualification questionnaires, which are generally unhelpful to SMEs?
Nick Harvey
My hon. Friend makes good points on the difficulties that SMEs believe they currently have in some of our big procurement projects. Since the move to the MOD contracting directly with prime contractors, which then handle subsidiary contracting, it would be true to say that the MOD has rather lost the skill set of managing SMEs. By the time the reforms are complete, I hope that a GOCO of the sort I have described will reinvest in those skill sets and that we will be better able to manage SMEs directly.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of what the Minister has said on sovereign capabilities, and the fact that Aldermaston is already a GOCO, how will the successor deterrent programme be different if it is transferred into a GOCO?
Nick Harvey
There will be very little difference. The fact of the matter, however, is that the project management undertaken on behalf of the MOD by DE&S will—I say this with considerable confidence—be better, because there will be a higher level of skills in DE&S. It will bring in a variety of new commercial skill sets of which it is currently short. That will secure better value for money and more efficient delivery of the contract.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his openness with the House at this early stage in his considerations. Will he commit to write to Members of the House who represent the DE&S work force as the project progresses, particularly in relation to the protections available to them under TUPE regulations?
Nick Harvey
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have been at pains to stress that despite DE&S lacking some of the skills it needs going forward the work done by those who work for it is of a high quality and is much appreciated by the MOD. We are consulting the work force and the trade unions as we take these steps forward, and as part of the ongoing consultation we will be happy to talk to Members representing constituencies where the majority of DE&S staff are based.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
For clarity, who in the future do the Government intend to be accountable for failures to deliver contracts on time and on budget?
Nick Harvey
The MOD will be the customer of the organisation and is responsible to Parliament for everything it does. If there is a failure, the buck will stop with the MOD.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that under this proposal British small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence industry will benefit?
Nick Harvey
I sincerely believe that SMEs in Britain will benefit because, at the moment, they get all their work through prime contractors, and it is a common complaint of SMEs that they do badly out of prime contractors. If we rebuild the skills inside DE&S so that it can manage the supply contracts from SMEs directly—in some instances—they will benefit. That is certainly what SMEs are telling us.
Points of Order
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, and again this morning, Health Ministers made a series of inaccurate statements. What powers exist under Standing Orders for you to ask them to return to the House and correct inaccurate figures on NHS budgets, delayed discharges and accident and emergency waiting times?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s attempted point of order is that answers to questions are the responsibility of Ministers. Similarly, in the event of an inaccuracy known to the Minister, it is the Minister’s responsibility to correct the record. The hon. Gentleman is a determined and persistent chap, and I feel sure that he will pursue the path of righteousness to his satisfaction. If he remains dissatisfied, no doubt we shall hear from him again.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a question on 11 July, the Health Secretary told me that local government was being given sufficient funding to cope with provisions in the new social care White Paper, but on the same day the Local Government Association released a statement saying:
“there won’t be enough money to provide these services to anyone other than the most needy, or those who can afford to pay for all of their own care.”
In the interests of accuracy, will the Secretary of State correct the record?
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but in material terms my reply does not differ in content from that which I just offered the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). It is, at least in part, a matter of interpretation. I said that the hon. Gentleman was a persistent chap, but she is a persistent woman, and I feel sure that she will pursue this matter in a way she judges fit.
I shall now call the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has three minutes in which to make such an application.
Wellingborough Prison
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—the loss of up to 600 jobs in my constituency owing to the announcement today of the closure of Her Majesty’s Prison Wellingborough.
It is with great regret that I move this motion at all. At 9.30 today, I was doing a live broadcast on BBC Radio 5 Live when it was announced as breaking news that Wellingborough prison was to be closed. I was not told in advance and have only just received an e-mail from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who has responsibility for prisons, outlining the plans to shut the prison. I hasten to add that this came after I learned about it through the media first.
That is in total contrast to how the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) handled the situation when Wellingborough prison was put into the market testing programme. On that occasion, the then Justice Secretary rang me at 6 am on the day of the announcement to ensure that I was fully briefed before the public statement. Clearly, the coalition Government believe in making announcements to the media before telling the local constituency MP.
What is most disturbing about the matter is the number of jobs that will be lost in my constituency. Up to 600 people might lose their employment, whether they are employed directly through the prison or indirectly through local businesses. The independent monitoring board annual report states that the prison improved from a level 2 to a level 3 prison. Wellingborough prison has moved from 123rd out of 130 in the prison rankings to 93 owing to the hard work and commitment of its governor and staff. It has also become far more cost effective, with 5% efficiency savings in 2011-12 and further planned efficiency savings of 3% projected for 2012-13.
This is a good, improving prison that is now being closed without any consultation or appeal process. Closure would have significant ramifications for my constituents. The prison management and officers have done everything they were asked to do and more. The reason given for its closure is that we have too much space in our prisons. This comes after years and years of being told that they are overcrowded and that we need more spaces—the previous Government allowed prisoners out early because there were not enough spaces.
There seems to be no consistency within the Ministry of Justice. With Britain’s increasing population, surely to have spaces left in prisons would be a sensible precaution, not least in case we have a repeat of last year’s riots. Hundreds of people losing their jobs in my constituency for a short-term, dubious economic saving is plain wrong. This is the wrong prison being closed for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his application under Standing Order No. 24. I understand his extreme disappointment at the decision and the alleged handling of the matter and of him. That said, having listened carefully to his application, I must nevertheless conclude that the matter does not, on this occasion, meet the criteria under Standing Order No. 24. Agreeing to the application would, of course, cause the subsequent debates to be significantly delayed. I recognise that my decision will disappoint him, but knowing him, as I do, to be an extraordinarily assiduous parliamentarian, I feel sure that it will not be long before he returns to the matter. I suspect that Justice Ministers are also keenly aware of that fact.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2012
Finance Act 2012
Cosmetic Surgery (Minimum Standards)
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish minimum standards for the practice of cosmetic surgery, including non-surgical procedures; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would establish the regulation of cosmetic surgery. I, too, am persistent, Mr Speaker. I first introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the regulation of cosmetic surgery in 1994. Unfortunately, despite calls from a wide range of organisations, not much has changed since. As a result, thousands of women have continued to face the horrific consequences of unregulated cosmetic surgery. That ten-minute rule Bill generated huge publicity and hundreds of letters, and the issue of breast implants has received even more attention of late following the PIP implant scandal in 2010.
At some time in our lives, most of us have wanted to change something about ourselves. Huge pressure is put on women in particular, but increasingly on men too, to change their looks. Private sector clinics offer a multitude of cosmetic procedures to achieve the perfect shape or a wrinkle-free face. Too thin, too fat, never just right—that is the message. Cosmetic surgery, including breast implants, continues to be a growing industry. In 2011, members of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons conducted almost 45,000 surgical procedures, more than 10,000 of which were breast enlargements for women. Between 2002 and 2011, the number of boob jobs rose by 324%, and it continues to rise, as do the numbers of facelifts, tummy tucks and nose jobs.
Members of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons also operated on more than 4,000 men, with nose jobs and man-boob jobs the two most popular procedures. That represents a 219% increase in cosmetic surgery for men since 2002, and does not include procedures carried out by people who are not members of the association, those undertaken abroad or those not yet classified as cosmetic procedures. Many people face exploitation by private sector clinics and even cowboy surgeons if they are unable to receive treatment through the NHS. Most cases of botched surgery or mistakes are then rectified by the NHS, as we have seen with the removal of PIP implants.
Regulation is needed in a number of areas to reduce the risks to patients. In 1998, the then Government accepted the recommendation of an independent review body on silicone breast implants to establish a national breast implant registry. I was part of that process and took part in several meetings at the Department of Health, but the register was abandoned in 2006. I propose that we now need a register for all types of implants used in all areas of the body, including breasts, cheeks, pecs and buttocks. That would allow better monitoring of outcomes and problems as they occur, which would have been useful in the recent PIP cases.
Many clinics gain much of their business from advertising in national newspapers and women’s magazines. They ask, “Is cosmetic surgery only for the rich and famous?” The answer they give is: “Not any more—it’s a lifestyle choice!” Some offer significant discounts, and there are even special deals on websites. Private clinics are now advertising on Twitter. One even suggested that women add a boob job to their Christmas present list. Misleading images and claims are used, despite tighter guidelines from the Advertising Standards Authority. Therefore, a ban on cosmetic surgery advertising should be introduced, as happened in France in 2005 and as the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons has called for. If cosmetic surgery is considered a form of medical procedure—which it undoubtedly is—it should not be advertised, as is the case with prescription medicines.
A further concern is non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Injected fillers such as Botox currently need only a CE mark—as do fridges—and are therefore heavily marketed in the UK, while the Food and Drug Administration in the USA categorises them as medical device implants requiring approval. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Government Front Bench listened to the point I am making, because it is a scandal that Ministers have done nothing about the situation.
The medical profession has always been controlled and regulated by strict ethics, but the voluntary codes of practice have been breached by some operators to make quick, easy money. An independent review found that 70% of clinics in the private cosmetic sector are effectively unregulated and that fewer than half of all operating theatres were properly equipped in 2010. We also need compulsory registration of all those who practise aesthetic medicine and use lasers. Facilities should be licensed and regulated by an independent body, such as the Care Quality Commission. Similarly, only doctors or nurses qualified to do so should be able to advise patients about cosmetic surgery. At the moment, initial consultations can be undertaken by a hard-sell receptionist, and doctors in private practice who lack specific experience can offer treatment which they are simply not qualified to give.
Somebody wrote to me about her experience of liposculpture in a ground-floor office in Harley street. She said:
“I think the operating table was a dental chair. They asked me to turn over on to my stomach, but the chair was the wrong shape and it was very difficult. At some stage during the operation I woke up. I was in tremendous pain and began screaming. They were still taking fat from my legs. The doctor told me afterwards that he had to continue with me awake or my legs would have been uneven.”
It turned out subsequently that the “cosmetic surgeon” was a general practitioner. He had performed a surgical operation without any surgical training and had administered a general anaesthetic without an anaesthetist. Such incidents are far too common. I read last week about a children’s writer. She has been left with blurred vision from botched laser eye surgery at a private clinic. After a five-year battle, she has finally received £250,000 in compensation, but has permanent scarring. In the Daily Mail only last week there was a piece headed, “Plastic surgeons offer buy one get one free on breast enlargements and nose jobs”.
Given all the issues and the lack of regulation in cosmetic surgery, it seems imperative to establish an official regulator of cosmetic surgery—OfCos, as proposed by the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons—to ensure registration and regulation of all cosmetic surgeons and practitioners in the UK. Or perhaps we should consider a cosmetic surgery licensing body that has a different type of structure and operates as a financial guarantee system, like ATOL—air travel organisers licensing—which provides financial protection for flights and air holiday packages.
The problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long. It is now almost 20 years since I first stood here and called for greater regulation of private cosmetic surgery. The current system of self-regulation by the private surgeons and clinics is clearly not working. As the previous president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons said in 2009:
“In no other area of medicine is there such an unregulated mess…Imagine a ‘2-for-1’ advert for general surgery? That way lies madness!”
This is a complex subject, but too many people are suffering and being disfigured at the hands of cowboys who have been given free rein to abuse the British public’s trust in the voluntary system of medical ethics. The responsibility clearly lies with the Government to take action as soon as possible to stop any more innocent people being subjected to butchery at the hands of some greedy, unscrupulous, and incompetent people, and to introduce the kind of regulation for cosmetic surgery that is long overdue.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ann Clwyd, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Fiona Mactaggart, Valerie Vaz, Dr Daniel Poulter, Barbara Keeley and Sheila Gilmore present the Bill.
Ann Clwyd accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 60).
Backbench Business
Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) to move the motion, I should explain to the House that this is not a vehicle for the utterance of ad hominem attacks on individual right hon. or hon. Members. For the purpose of such attacks or criticism, a substantive motion relating to an individual right hon. or hon. Member would be necessary. The issue here is the principle and the proposal that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put before the House.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to implement the recommendation made by the Public Administration Select Committee in paragraph 44 of its Twenty-second Report of Session 2010-12, The Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests: independent or not?, that the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests ‘should be empowered to instigate his own investigations’; and notes that this motion has been agreed by the Public Administration Select Committee.
I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House this brief opportunity to express an opinion on this question today. The Public Administration Select Committee motion is supported by no less than 18 Select Committee Chairmen. The issue turns on a simple question of principle, which is whether or not the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests should be able to decide for him or herself to investigate a potential breach of the ministerial code. All the credible advice that we have received suggests that such a decision should be a matter for the adviser and not for the Prime Minister.
The Public Administration Select Committee—PASC—has advocated that course of action since the first adviser, Sir John Bourn, was appointed by Tony Blair in March 2006. The ministerial code sets out the circumstances in which the adviser—always referred to as the “independent adviser”—is requested to investigate alleged breaches of the code. Under the present arrangements, the question of whether or not to investigate is therefore in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day, on the advice of the Cabinet Secretary.
In 2006, in paragraph 17 of PASC’s report entitled “The Ministerial Code: the case for independent investigation”, the Committee warned:
“It is hard to see how the Independent Adviser can command public confidence if the Prime Minister can decide that prima facie breaches of the Code will not be investigated. Put simply, there is no point in having an investigator in post if he is not given discretion to investigate very public allegations that the Code has been breached.”
Paragraph 20 of the report points out:
“The decision to instigate an investigation still lies with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is clearly not an impartial figure when it comes to deciding whether or not to instigate an investigation. If the regulatory system is to have credibility, that decision must be taken out of political hands.”
In paragraph 34 of the report, the Committee therefore concluded:
“Until the changes we outline have taken place, it is inappropriate to refer to the new investigator as an Independent Adviser.”
The previous Government refused to accept PASC’s recommendation because they believed that
“it must ultimately be for the Prime Minister to account to Parliament for his decisions and actions in relation to the appointment of his Ministers”.
I have to say that that rather missed the point. The Committee was not suggesting that the Prime Minister should cease to make decisions about who to appoint or to dismiss as Ministers, or that he should cease to account to Parliament for those decisions. It merely suggested that he should be supported by truly independent advice.
PASC’s most recent report on the subject, entitled “The Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests: independent or not?” was published this year. In it, we concluded that, because our previous recommendations had not been implemented,
“the title of ‘independent adviser’ is a misnomer.”
Paragraph 44 of that report also reiterated PASC’s central recommendation
“that the independent adviser should be empowered to instigate his own investigations. The Prime Minister could do this on his own initiative, without any need for legislation, but placing the post on a statutory footing would be preferable.”
The disadvantages of the present arrangements have been manifest in recent months. Sir Philip Mawer, the previous incumbent, expressed his frustration to the Committee that he was given no role in the investigation of the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) in respect of Adam Werritty, and suggested that there needed to be a willingness to engage the adviser earlier in the process of investigating potential breaches of the ministerial code. In that case, the Cabinet Secretary conducted the investigation instead of the adviser. Why? We were told that the adviser would have taken too long. However, PASC has established that Sir Philip’s successor, Sir Alex Allan, will conduct swift preliminary inquiries if asked to do so, so that he can play his proper role. The problem of public perception was all the more acute in the case of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and the conduct of his special adviser, Adam Smith.
The problem with the present system is that as soon as the question of a serious potential breach of the code and a possible referral to the Prime Minister’s adviser arises, the Prime Minister is damned if he does, and damned if he does not. Referral is seen either as condemnation of the Minister’s conduct or as an attempt to protect the Minister from a full investigation. The same damage is done to the reputation of the Minister in question who, if innocent, would doubtless prefer the clean bill of health given by an independent investigation. In the more recent case, we finished up with one of the most unpleasant and acrimonious debates in the House of Commons that I have ever witnessed. The office of the independent adviser was set up to improve public confidence in the conduct of Government, but that episode does not vindicate it as a success.
Changing the procedure would avoid all that. It would make the adviser more genuinely independent, and it would help to remove the public suspicion that ministerial conduct can be protected from proper investigation. Short preliminary investigations, unimpeded by political considerations, would speed up the whole process.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his chairing of the Committee and for the contribution that he is making today. I strongly support what he is saying. Can he offer the House any guidance on how we can best protect against potential witch hunts by those in the media who simply want to make life difficult for a Minister and get an investigation under way?
Mr Jenkin
I submit that that would be a question of the robustness of the adviser. The process would operate in a similar way to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, in that if the adviser felt that there was a serious case to answer, he would pursue it. If he thought that it was based on hearsay or tittle-tattle, he would dismiss it. Obviously, the moment at which he announced an investigation would be a threshold moment, but we have experience of that with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who operates in that manner.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In response to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), I think that media witch hunts would be less likely if the new arrangements were to be adopted, because the media would be less suspicious that anything untoward was happening.
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman also serves on the Committee, and I am grateful to him for his participation. He makes his point extremely well. Witch hunts start when there is a suspicion that the Prime Minister is seeking to protect a Minister from an investigation. That is when the media—and, indeed, Her Majesty’s official Opposition—tend to jump on the bandwagon.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I want to express my full support for the motion and for the Committee’s report. There are certain questions that many people will ask, and they need to be put on public record. To whom should the independent adviser be directly accountable, and who should appoint him if we are to ensure the maximum degree of genuine independence?
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman raises a salient point. The manner of the adviser’s appointment was mentioned in the report, although I am not going to address it directly today. In 2003, before the post was established, the Committee on Standards in Public Life originally recommended that the appointment should be made through the public appointments process and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That has not happened. It did not happen with the appointment of Sir Alex Allan, and we have been highly critical of that fact. We believe that there should be an open public appointments process for this role, as there is for any other significant public appointment.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend seems to be making an unanswerable case. Will he explain to the House the present position if a Minister chooses to refer him or herself to the independent adviser? Would that position change if his proposals were adopted?
Mr Jenkin
I imagine that any Minister who pressed the Prime Minister for referral should be granted one; however, it might be granted or it might not be—it is a matter for the Prime Minister. That is that. I do not know what a Minister who wanted to be referred would do if the Prime Minister refused that; I think he would just have to lump it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under my hon. Friend’s chairmanship on the Public Administration Select Committee. Will he confirm that, although the report recommends that the Prime Minister’s adviser should be independent in making the decision, he will nevertheless operate under a clear set of guidelines to help him make that decision?
Mr Jenkin
I think the guidelines are the ministerial code, and it should be for the adviser to determine his own process, but it is perfectly reasonable for the Government and the Prime Minister to insist that the adviser has a quick process to establish prima facie cases and decide whether they are worthy of further investigation rather than go into the full process straight away. I can understand the Prime Minister being reluctant to refer cases to Sir Philip Mawer, who had established a very long, tortuous and indisputably fair process, but not one that could be quick under the pressure of political events as required.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend given any thought to his own Committee’s involvement in pre-appointment scrutiny in the light of the comments and thoughts of the Liaison Committee on such questions?
Mr Jenkin
We held a hearing with the new adviser on Minister’s interests, but we were anxious—at least, I was anxious—to make it clear that it was not a pre-appointment hearing. Personally, I have absolutely no doubt of Sir Alex Allan’s bona fides and integrity. Unfortunately, we expressed the view that the manner of his appointment undermined the idea that he is actually an independent adviser, although he is certainly an adviser. He has a day job, too, in that he advises Ministers on their respective private interests and potential conflicts of interests, and ensures that there is a register of Ministers’ interests. That is his main job, and I have no doubt that he does it extremely efficiently. As I say, however, the manner of his appointment does not lead the public to believe that he is truly independent.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to persuade his Committee to do further work in this area, perhaps in line with Sir Philip Mawer’s suggestions for trying to establish ground rules for assessing whether Ministers should be suspended as and when an investigation is taking place—a suggestion made in answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)?
Mr Jenkin
We are certainly minded to conduct a further inquiry into the ministerial code at some stage. At the moment, we are waiting for the Government to respond to our latest report on the Prime Minister’s adviser.
To reiterate, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to instigate his own investigations. Who would suggest now that he should not? His office would command little public support and therefore provide little protection for the reputation of this House and its Members. Other systems in countries such as Canada allow political ethics regulators to instigate their own inquiries into ministerial conduct. How can the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—be objective or, perhaps more importantly, be seen to be objective when he has to make judgments about close colleagues that could have far-reaching political consequences? I appreciate the fact that Government insiders, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, see this as a potentially huge change, but those who are outside government and not imbued by being in government see this as a very obvious change to make.
Today, on the last day of term, not many colleagues are here, but I nevertheless intend to press this matter to a vote. I challenge Ministers not to resist, and I challenge Labour Members, too, to show how they now embrace what they resisted when they were in office. I have no doubt where public sentiment lies, so let us not delay any longer to bring about what should have been implemented years ago, for this issue will return again and again. PASC will return to it, too, until this recommendation is accepted.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If hon. Members will resume their seats, let me announce that this debate is time limited to 2.20 pm. I intend to call Gareth Thomas at 1.58 pm for 10 minutes, Nick Hurd at 2.08 pm for 10 minutes, and finally Mr Jenkin to sum up in the last two minutes. Six Members wish to contribute, so I ask them to take account of the time constraints in order to be fair to others.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Before making a few substantive points, I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for prioritising this debate, ensuring that we have time for it on the last sitting day before the recess. The Backbench Business Committee has earned our respect and admiration for ensuring that such vital matters are the focus of attention—and what could be more important than propriety and integrity in public life?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, on his powerful speech, which set out a clear rationale for the independence of the adviser on the ministerial code of conduct. I commend the hon. Gentleman’s tenacity and his determination to succeed in pursuing this vital issue. It is a matter that has the support of all PASC members, and indeed the independent Chairs of other Select Committees.
I, too, start from a premise—one that it is absolutely fundamental to effective government that it must abide by underpinning principles of integrity, fairness, openness and transparency. I have no doubt whatever that it was in that spirit that the office of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests was established. It was, I believe, set up in good faith, with the Prime Minister having the power of decision on whether or not to instigate investigations. However, based on experience over the last four years, that notion is well past its sell-by date. Since that time, we have seen a dramatic turn of events, including the expenses scandal, which has called the integrity of Parliament into question. To put it bluntly and specifically in relation to the ministerial code, experience over the last few years underscores the need for outright independence.
When in opposition in 2010, the Prime Minister promised to strengthen the ministerial code. He said:
“we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down.”
When questioned in a recent interview about six significant changes in Government policy, he said:
“When you’ve got something wrong, there are two things you can do in government: you can plough on regardless, or you can say, ‘No, we’re going to listen, we’re going to change it, we’re going to get it right.’”
My challenge to the Prime Minister is to say, “Stop ploughing a lone furrow, and take this opportunity to ‘get it right’”. The strength of feeling in this House and in the wider public domain sends a clear message—that the application of scrutiny of the ministerial code lies not just with the Prime Minister, but indeed with the whole House. The overwhelming view is that the independent adviser must be given the power to instigate his own investigations on our behalf.
The retirement of Sir Philip Mawer provided a timely opportunity for the Prime Minister to change the status of, and relationship with, the independent adviser. However, not only was that golden opportunity missed but, to add insult to injury, the new appointment was made through a closed recruitment process. This added fuel to allegations that the independent adviser was merely a pawn of the Prime Minister. So let me make my position very clear: no longer can the Prime Minister act as team captain, goalkeeper and referee at the same time; no longer can the Prime Minister alone dictate the interpretation of the rules that might merit invoking an independent investigation; no longer should we need to devote part of an Opposition day to debating robust and fair application of the codes, and neither should we have the highly charged and intensely heated exchanges, to which our Chairman referred earlier, within this Chamber that characterised the most recent debate.
In these volatile political times, the concentration of such power in the hands of the Prime Minister leaves him open to charges of partisan treatment and bias. Because ours is a largely unwritten constitution, we must be particularly careful that institutions and political offices retain their integrity and credibility. An independent adviser must have the authority to speak truth unto power. In addition, there are weighty matters of state that demand the Prime Minister’s full attention, both at home and abroad. With such a heavy and important political agenda, the argument that application of the “Ministerial Code” must be vested in the adviser is all the more cogent.
I entirely endorse the summary by the Public Administration Committee, which states:
“The reform of ethical regulation in British public life must be undertaken openly, consensually and on the basis of sound principle.”
Whatever the reality, there is a public perception of ad-hockery surrounding the appointment of the independent adviser by the Prime Minister, and the current situation creates further attention to bring our political process into disrepute. I urge everyone to support the motion so that we can ensure that there is a real separation of powers when we are dealing with the propriety and integrity of Members of this august House.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Paragraph 1.5 of the
“Ministerial Code” states:
“Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected”.
The passing of this motion would change that. Rather than decisions being made by Ministers and the Prime Minister, an independent adviser would, at his own instigation, pass judgments on Ministers. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he commands a majority in the House, and under our constitution it is the Prime Minister who appoints Ministers who are accountable to him and to the House, but passing the motion would change that.
What worries me is that a huge constitutional weight would be placed on the “Ministerial Code” for which it is entirely ill-suited. This document has not been approved by the House; it has not even been approved by the Cabinet. John Major’s Cabinet agreed to publish it, but there was a strong view that it should not be published because it would lead to inappropriate weight being placed on it. At best it is a prime ministerial document, but in reality it was only under Attlee that that was the case.
According to what I believe is the only history of the development of the “Ministerial Code”, by a lady called Amy Baker,
“Attlee had tailored the document very much to his own style and the needs of his own Labour administration—and succeeding Prime Ministers may have followed suit, had the Cabinet Office not intervened.”
However, the original Cabinet Secretary, Hankey,
“had drafted the very first guidelines in order to establish some continuity of procedure which would enable the Cabinet Office to organise business without being disrupted too much on a change of government.”
We know what has happened as the code has developed. Winston Churchill took no interest in it and Eden refused to issue a code, but it was used by Macmillan. Home and then Wilson took over in 1963 and 1964, and the Cabinet Secretary claimed that the document bore the great imprimatur of various Prime Ministers when that was in fact not the case. What had happened in 1963 and 1964 was used to push through paragraph 4.7, which puts junior Ministers under the thumb of the permanent secretary and says that they cannot tell the permanent secretary what to do even if the Secretary of State is happy for them to do so. According to Amy Baker’s book, at the time that
“may have seemed quite convenient”
to the drafters of what was then “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” ,
“who knew that their amendments would now be ‘automatically’ approved by the new Prime Minister”.
Similar circumstances arose when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 and the rules governing the roles of parliamentary private secretaries changed. According to the book,
“amongst those directives which senior officials selected for incorporation into QPM, were instructions prohibiting dissent in the Commons from parliamentary private secretaries.”
Again, we see a system whereby the House is denuded of its rights and civil servants decide what happens to the “Ministerial Code”.
According to a former Cabinet Secretary,
“This process meant that on a change of government, senior officials in the Cabinet Office had a wider discretion to initiate amendments, as the incoming Prime Minister would be unaware of recent issues and would generally approve the draft handed to them on appointment.”
That is how we arrived at the reference to an overarching duty to obey international law. There is no basis for it in this Parliament or in our courts, but if the motion is passed, the position will become even worse. Not only will the code be a constitutional document, but a retired civil servant will decide how it applies to each individual Minister, and I think that that is wrong.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
We have seen the degradation of a very valuable reform that was made when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. I was a member of the Public Administration Committee at the time, and we were not happy with everything that the last Government did. We wanted to go further: we wanted a pre-appointment hearing. However, if we look at the history of the code, we see that it was used once by the last Government on an occasion involving Shahid Malik and has not been used by the present Government in three serious cases, although it was used in a minor case.
We should heed what was said about lobbying by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition, and in last week’s report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. When in opposition, the Prime Minister said, quite rightly, that lobbying was the greatest scandal facing us, and that money was buying power and power was fishing for money. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened under this Government, and to an even greater extent. We must look to our reputation. We must recognise the fact that we are not winning back the trust and the confidence of the people, which is our prime task after the expenses scandal, but are losing that trust and that confidence and providing even greater cause for scandal.
The first of the three cases that should have been investigated by the independent adviser, as he says himself, was the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). We now have a new doctrine of absolution by resignation: those who resign will not be subject to a full investigation of their conduct by the only legal enforcer of the “Ministerial Code”. An investigation was carried out virtually over the weekend for party political reasons, in order to get it over with rapidly.
The second case involved a Minister who argued that he did not have to declare a meal with which he had been provided by a lobbyist because on the day in question he was digesting with his private rather than his ministerial stomach. That was accepted, and no investigation was carried out.
Thirdly, there was the case of the Culture Secretary, on which we had a debate the other day. I believe that we must look to the conduct of the adviser on that. In extraordinary circumstances, following receipt of a letter from the Prime Minister dated the day of the debate, an answer came back before 12 pm virtually absolving the Minister involved of the charge that he and his staff had been approached by a lobbyist 500 times, because it had been deemed not to be a legitimate area for investigation. All those cases should have been investigated under the “Ministerial Code”.
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which is behaving as it should. There is unanimity on the Committee about the reform that is necessary. When the new independent adviser appeared before the Committee, I asked him what he would do if we expressed our unhappiness about his appointment. We suggested that he had a reputation for being a poodle—for having followed Ministers around for years, obeying them with “Yes sir” and “No sir”. That had long been his role. He was not the Rottweiler that we needed. He said that if we expressed our unhappiness he would consider relinquishing his post, and we did express our unhappiness. I believe that before appointing such a person we must decide by means of a pre-appointment hearing whether he possesses the necessary robust independence.
Robert Halfon
Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the ratifying of the “Ministerial Code” by Parliament would deal with some of the objections raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)?
Paul Flynn
No, it would not, because, under this Government, in the three serious cases I have mentioned, the code has not been used, when it should have been. The only time it has been called upon was in a case of some triviality, where the person involved admitted her guilt, and that went through. These other serious potential abuses have not even been investigated, and we must question the impartiality of the adviser because of his conduct on the day of the debate in question. All the misgivings we had were justified.
We, as an institution, are in grave danger of deepening public cynicism against us. We have had new cases of allegations, backed up with films showing a lobbyist trying to get access to the Prime Minister or boasting of access—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Time is up. I call Sir Alan Beith.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
The Public Administration Committee has been consistent on this matter, and it has been right on this matter. It is not about the choosing of Ministers; it is not even about the dismissal of Ministers. It is about ensuring that, if there is the possibility of impropriety in ministerial conduct, that can be investigated. It is too much to expect the Prime Minister not to be influenced by other factors in deciding whether to refer such a matter. To lose one Minister is bad enough; to lose several is careless. The Prime Minister will always have an anxiety that an adverse report by the investigator could lead to his needing to dismiss a Minister. It is simply naive to suppose that no Prime Minister will be affected by such considerations. Therefore, the adviser should be free to initiate investigations. Indeed, they would often do so in circumstances where it is to the advantage of the Minister concerned that there be a straightforward, clear and swift way of vindicating him, if he is innocent.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly in support of the comments of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chair of the Select Committee. He put the case very well. We do not need to use extreme language, as the proposal is common sense, particularly given recent events. We want an investigator who has the capacity to conduct proper investigations and offer advice. The constitutional relationship between the Prime Minister and this House would not be changed by that. He could accept or reject the advice, but at least investigations could be made independently, without having to ask the permission of the Prime Minister first. That would be a significant change.
Mark Reckless
Regardless of the formal situation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the political reality will be that if this independent investigator decides to conduct an investigation off his own bat and then gives a withering condemnation of the Minister concerned, it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister to keep that Minister in office, and de facto control would pass to the adviser?
Kelvin Hopkins
I trust that the investigator would make a withering condemnation only if that were justified. The recent events surrounding the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and his amanuensis, Adam Werritty, deserved to be thoroughly investigated, but in my view they were not properly investigated.
Such a situation would not arise in future. I hope the Chairman of the Select Committee will not mind my mentioning that we will undertake a report on special advisers. I hope we will recommend putting their relationship with Ministers on a better footing in future, so that situations such as the Adam Werritty case do not arise again.
This proposal is timely. Recently, Prime Ministers have operated in an extremely powerful, individualistic way, and in a secretive way. They have often not trusted full Cabinets to discuss important matters. We are now moving towards a situation where the Prime Minister will be a little more open and accountable, without damaging our constitution in any way—in fact, this proposal will improve it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It seems to me that the Prime Minister will be assisted by this appointment of an independent investigator, as he will not have to make these tricky decisions.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. A situation might arise in which a Minister who has not behaved very well is a personal friend of the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister could then say to the Minister, “Well, the investigation wasn’t instigated by me. It was instigated independently, and I have to accept the advice of the report. It is not me who is causing you difficulty; it’s the investigation by the independent adviser.”
In every way, therefore, this proposal is a progressive advance that is in keeping with the spirit of the times. I hope that in future more of the Prime Minister’s current powers will be devolved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will not put the clock on you, Mr Mulholland, but I ask you to resume your seat at 1.58 pm.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, and I am very proud that we have come up with this sensible and important proposal. It is hugely important for Parliament, as it addresses the holding of Ministers to account, which is one of our key roles. We must remember that it is important outside this place, too; it is important to ordinary people, who saw the unseemly events of the past few months and have therefore come to regard the current system of accountability as wholly inadequate. Recent episodes have also left a nasty taste in the mouths of Members on both sides of the House, who agree that the current situation is wholly unacceptable.
When Sir Alex Allan appeared before our Committee, we had what can only be described as a wholly unsatisfactory discussion with him in respect of both the realities of the role and, I am afraid, our confidence in his ability to perform it as it should be performed, rather than as it is, sadly, currently performed.
We must remember that this proposal was introduced by the previous Government. In response to the predecessor Committee’s previous report on the issue, they made it clear that the appointment would be a personal one by the Prime Minister and that he would need to have confidence that the person appointed would be able to provide independent and impartial advice.
We want the Minister to say that the Government will accept our sensible proposal, and we also want the Opposition to agree to it; they must accept the original principles of this new office as set out under the last Government. I have asked the same of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that he is happy to do so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The full title of this post is “the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests” but the simple reality is that it is the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests. The current title is fraudulent and misleading to Parliament and the public. If these reforms are not accepted and implemented, the Government should at least have the decency to change the title to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests.”
Sir Alex Allan was appointed to the post with no open competition. We do not believe anyone else was even in the frame for the job, and there was no detail whatever on the process he went through. That is simply unacceptable.
Our proposal is based on an extremely simple idea. If—free from political interference and regardless of any media witch hunt—the independent adviser believes there is sufficient genuine evidence for an investigation, he should intervene. That is all we are asking for.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Time is up. I call Gareth Thomas.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a brief but interesting debate. I commend the work of the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). He has rightly received praise for the tenacious way in which he and his Committee have pursued these issues. I hope he will forgive me if I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), too, for he has also pursued these issues with considerable vigour and tenacity.
I studied the contributions of all Select Committee members. I carefully read the questions they put to Sir Philip Mawer and Sir Alex Allan, and noted in particular the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is also a consistent campaigner on these issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). They all made good contributions to this debate, too.
This debate would not have the resonance it currently has outside the House if it were not for the Prime Minister’s mishandling of key questions about possible violations of the ministerial code—a point that was implicit in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes.
The Opposition remain determined to take the steps necessary to continue the process of restoring trust in the political process. When we were in government, we took steps to reform Parliament, passing new laws to protect our democracy. We acted to increase transparency and strengthen public accountability for Members of the House of Commons. On ministerial accountability, we also introduced further reforms. The then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), introduced the publication of an annual report and a list of Ministers’ interests, again to increase transparency and Ministers’ accountability to this House. He also appointed Sir Philip Mawer as the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, calling on him, as a number of Members have mentioned, to investigate the then Member for Dewsbury in May 2009, against whom a particular allegation—it was unfounded, as it turned out—had been made. Sir Philip investigated and the Minister was cleared and returned to his ministerial duties.
I have a number of questions for the Minister and, if I may, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, but the context of our debate is worth touching on. It is the Prime Minister’s refusal, using the Leveson inquiry as his reason, to ask Sir Philip’s successor, Sir Alex Allan, to investigate the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Prime Minister’s failure to call in the independent adviser in the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), that form the backdrop to our debate. The fact that so many Members wanted this debate is in no small part due to the Prime Minister’s refusal to use consistently a system which the last Prime Minister established and used, but which the current Prime Minister now appears unwilling to use—except when he is sure of the outcome.
In short, the motion before the House today is the direct result of the belief of too many Members, on both sides of the House, that the Prime Minister has mishandled his responsibility for the ministerial code.
Mr Jenkin
I resent the hon. Gentleman making that implication, because I do not think that it does reflect why all the signatures are on the motion. What it does reflect, however, is the fact that the previous Labour Government did not accept this recommendation from the predecessor Committee. It is incumbent on him to explain whether the Labour party has now changed its mind and will support this motion, or whether he is just going to use this opportunity to make political points in this debate.
Mr Thomas
I will come to the position that Opposition Front Benchers are taking, but the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee is wrong not to recognise the considerable concern on the Opposition Benches—and the Government Benches—at the Prime Minister’s decision not to refer the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset to the independent adviser, which I understand prompted the Committee’s original inquiry into this issue in this Parliament. The Prime Minister’s more recent decision to refer the case of the noble Baroness Warsi and not that of the Culture Secretary has galvanised interest in the Committee’s work in this area.
The shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), set out in her speech on 13 June some detailed concerns, which I do not intend to dwell on now, about the Prime Minister’s failure to uphold the code and to ensure that an appropriate investigation took place.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Opposition’s concern about this issue, but does he not accept that their remarks would have far greater traction if they said that they now supported the motion and regretted not having taken action when in government?
Mr Thomas
As I think I set out earlier, we did take action when we were in government, and the House is better for it. However, I want to come to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made not only in this debate but in the Public Administration Committee’s hearings.
There is a particular outstanding question that the Prime Minister still needs to answer, and perhaps the Minister can give us some clarity on it. Why is it appropriate for the independent adviser to be used in the case of the noble Baroness Warsi and not that of the Culture Secretary? I also have a series of questions on which I would welcome the views of the Chair of the Public Administration Committee in his concluding remarks. As I hope I made clear, I think some further work by his Committee in this area would be useful for the whole House, not least in questioning the current ministerial adviser on his lack of consultation in the case of the Culture Secretary.
The new independent adviser told the Committee when giving evidence that he had made the point to the new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, that
“there are advantages to him in bringing the Adviser in early and whenever major issues arise.”
That appears at odds with the comment in a letter from Sir Alex that was deposited in the Library, accepting the Prime Minister’s decision not to refer the case and noting the work of the Leveson inquiry, and with the clear view of Sir Brian Leveson that his inquiry was not an appropriate place for the Secretary of State’s conduct to be investigated. I raise this question not in any way to express doubt about Sir Alex’s capacity or commitment, but to inquire whether the Committee will continue to explore the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the ministerial adviser to be brought in, and to suggest—in a spirit of helpfulness, I hope—that Sir Alex’s evidence may well be helpful in that context.
Will the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee be summoning the Cabinet Secretary to explore the extent to which there was consultation with Sir Alex over the Culture Secretary’s case? In my intervention on the Chairman, I raised the possibility of further work by his Committee in this area, highlighting two issues that Sir Philip Mawer raised, in part in answer to some questions from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns): whether suspension of a Minister is really possible during a code investigation in practical political terms; and the possibility of the Committee helping to establish a set of “ground rules”—his words—for a situation where an investigation is under way and the media is in full pursuit of that Minister.
The Opposition will listen carefully to the position and argument that the Minister, and indeed the Public Administration Committee Chairman, develop. We will want to consider the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, which it is a pity was not available for today’s debate. I have genuinely an open mind on this issue. The Opposition’s instinct is that further work is required.
This debate is born out of frustration with the Prime Minister’s handling of his responsibility for the ministerial code.
Mr Thomas
I am winding up.
The failure to use the independent adviser in the case of the right hon. Member for North Somerset, compounded by the failure to contemplate using him in the case of the Culture Secretary, provides the context for this debate. Sadly, it is yet another debate called in this great House because of the errors of judgment of the current Prime Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for clarifying the Labour party’s position on this issue—or not. I would like to begin by registering my personal respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the other members of his Committee for their persistence on this matter. I note carefully his comment that that persistence is not going away. I also note, on the Government’s behalf, that the motion has cross-party support and has been signed by a number of distinguished Chairmen of Select Committees. This short debate is therefore one the Government must listen to, and I believe are listening to, carefully, and we will consider carefully what has come out of it.
I think it would be helpful if I restated an important principle that the Labour party also clung to in its 13 years in power: when it comes to the ministerial code, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) pointed out. The bottom line is that Ministers remain in office only for as long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He or she decides, and is accountable to Parliament for those decisions.
The advent of an independent adviser is clearly welcome—although the Labour party seemed to fight it for many years—and he or she clearly has an important role. It is worth clarifying that there are two aspects to the role, both of which are important. One part of the role is, at the request of the Prime Minister, to look into allegations of breaches of the ministerial code, if the Prime Minister thinks that is necessary, and to advise the Prime Minister. But it is for the Prime Minister to take this decision and be accountable for it. In some cases, the Prime Minister will have no need to ask for advice, as the issues will be clear. In other cases, there may be the need for further investigation before the Prime Minister can take a decision. In those instances, he will refer to the independent adviser.
It is to misunderstand the intended role of the independent adviser to suggest that he or she should be able to instigate his or her own investigations. The adviser is there, personally appointed by the Prime Minister, to advise the Prime Minister on allegations of breaches of the code, if the Prime Minister thinks it is necessary. I shall now read out an important quote from the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Liaison Committee on 3 July:
“The ministerial adviser on interests is there to advise the Prime Minister; he gives the advice and the Prime Minister has to make the decision.”
There has been no change in approach; this is the same practice that existed under the previous Government.
Greg Mulholland
I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend, as he is actually dealing with the issue, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) in his extraordinary and pathetic contribution. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if the independent adviser had the powers we are talking about, he himself would say that there is not the evidence to proceed with an inquiry? The proposed approach would do that job and give the public confidence that there was no need for an inquiry in the first place.
Paul Flynn
The Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Christopher Kelly, said in evidence to the Public Administration Committee that in his view the Prime Minister had broken the ministerial code in one of these instances. As the Prime Minister is unlikely to refer himself to the adviser, is it not crucial that we have someone of independence who can take on the Prime Minister when he is suspected of breaking the ministerial code?
Mr Hurd
I have not seen Sir Christopher Kelly’s evidence on that, but there is no shortage of opportunities to hold the Prime Minister to account on anything.
Providing advice to the Prime Minister on allegations about a breach of the ministerial code is one aspect of the independent adviser’s role. I also wish to explain the other important aspect of the role, as it has been ignored in the debate: the adviser provides an independent check and source of advice to Ministers on the handling of their private interests in order to avoid any conflict between those interests and their ministerial responsibilities, as set out in section 7 of the ministerial code. This is very much behind-the-scenes work; it is about sorting out issues before they arise. However, it does result in the publication by the Cabinet Office of the list of Ministers’ interests, which puts into the public domain a list of all the relevant interests of all Ministers and enables external scrutiny of possible conflicts of interest. Obviously, this is an ongoing process as issues arise, not a one-off. It is important to put on record that second dimension to the independent adviser’s work.
Some questions were raised about particular cases this afternoon, although I think that the hon. Member for Harrow West struck the wrong tone, not for the first time, by seizing the opportunity to try to make a political attack on the Prime Minister. Rather than rehearse some arguments about why one particular case was referred or otherwise, I simply say that in each case—those of the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary and Baroness Warsi—there were no shortages of opportunities for the House or for the media to hold the Prime Minister to account for the decisions he took.
Mark Reckless
Did not the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) go beyond that by suggesting that the code, rather than being a prime ministerial document for Ministers, actually applies to the Prime Minister, too, and that the independent investigator should investigate whether the Prime Minister has breached it? If that were the case, should we not all just pack up, go home and let the independent advisers decide everything?
Mr Hurd
I share my hon. Friend’s reservations about placing too much weight and responsibility on someone who is ultimately an adviser, and this will not be the first time that the hon. Member for Newport West has overstated his case. The point that I was trying to make about the political attacks on the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Harrow West was that the reasons in each particular case that he cited were made public and the Prime Minister, as we are extremely well aware, was held very accountable for all those decisions.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the Minister not recognise that history shows that the ministerial code has been invoked more as a shield against public and parliamentary accountability than as a tool for enabling those things? For as long as the code remains the personal app of the Prime Minister and the independent adviser does not have independence, surely all we are looking at is a feeble cross between a figment and a fig leaf.
Robert Halfon
Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), does my hon. Friend agree that to solve this problem the ministerial code should be ratified by Parliament?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his suit, which has enlivened proceedings today.
In the time available to me, I wish to make a comment about the issue of the independence of Sir Alex Allan, because it has been suggested that he is not independent enough or even that he is perhaps not up to the job, having only just retired from a senior role at the heart of government before taking up the role. As I have said, this is a personal appointment by the Prime Minister of the day. A number of qualities are required for the job. In particular, the independent adviser needs to be somebody whose expertise and experience enable them to provide confidential and trusted advice to Ministers and their permanent secretaries. It is our judgment, and the judgment of the Prime Minister, that Sir Alex Allan has that experience, as well as the necessary skills and judgment to make him ideally suited for the role.
In conclusion, today’s debate has shown the range of views on the issue. I hope that we have made it clear that the Government treat issues of ministerial conduct with the utmost seriousness. The Government will reflect carefully on the points made in this debate, and will reflect on them in our response, overdue as it is, to the Public Administration Committee report. That response will be published shortly.
Mr Jenkin
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to reply to this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is custom and practice in this place to say what an interesting debate we have had, but we really have had an interesting exchange on this occasion. I am very grateful for, and indeed touched by, the warm remarks of members of the Public Administration Committee who have made comments about how much they enjoy working on that Committee—that goes for me, too. I very much appreciate their participation and support for our activity.
Many of those hon. Members spoke in this debate, but by far the most interesting contribution was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who raised a number of interesting things about the ministerial code. We are not debating its content; we are debating how the code should be enforced. He should somehow take part in our inquiry into the ministerial code, when we get to it, because he has a lot of important and interesting contributions to make, but I submit to him that the code should be owned by Parliament and controlled by Parliament in order that it can become a mechanism that can be used by Parliament to hold Ministers to account.
Let us remember that the code was secret until quite recently. It was published only recently and it was only very recently that it started being referred to in statute. The point has been made that a change has been smuggled in whereby Ministers have to obey international law even if there is no statute that requires them to obey that law. That is an extraordinary constitutional innovation and it is one of the things that we would want to look at.
I want to complete my remarks by referring to the two Front Benchers. They are both erudite and intelligent people who have done their best to avoid addressing the crunch issue. I understand why the Government are reluctant to make the change, but I am prepared to press this to a vote because otherwise we will be back again having exactly the same debate as we always do. I put it to the Opposition spokesman: if we finish up with another debate moved by the Opposition on why somebody has not been referred—
Summer Adjournment
Health
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I rise to take the opportunity to discuss the Safe and Sustainable review into children’s heart surgery in England and Wales and the concerns about the process that led to the closure of the excellent Leeds unit. The decision was taken on 4 July. Families from up and down the country were asked to be present to give their views and the joint committee of primary care trusts—the JCPCT—deliberated in public all day. The decision was due, but it was delayed, delayed and delayed again, until it was finally announced that Leeds would close. What left a particularly nasty taste in the mouth was that it was abundantly clear when documentation was produced that the decision had already been taken and that that day, including asking the families of children who had needed to use the surgery unit, was a charade. I am afraid that that was all too typical of the way in which this process has been handled.
There are serious questions about how the JCPCT reached that decision. It ignored clear evidence and, I am afraid to say, there has been a clear and obvious bias all along towards Newcastle. Leslie Hamilton was on the committee despite being based at Newcastle, but there was no one from Leeds. No one in Leeds or, I am sure, up and down the country was at all surprised at the decision, because we expected it. We could see that the JCPCT was simply not considering the evidence.
In the brief time I have available I shall raise a few points and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) will raise a few more. I am sure that other hon. Members will also seek to do so and I shall look forward to having a full debate in the autumn, when we can place on the record the myriad serious concerns on this point.
First, 600,000 people signed a petition in support of the retention of the unit at Leeds, yet that was counted as only one response by the committee. At the same time, 22,000 text messages from unknown sources supporting Birmingham were counted as 22,000 submissions. So, how can the JCPCT say that it does not “count heads” when it is ignoring 600,000 people, counting them as one submission, yet counting 22,000 text messages as 22,000 separate responses?
Why has the JCPCT watered down expert advice on the gold standard of collocation? It has adopted a watered-down version on the advice of fewer than 10 clinicians in the steering group and on the recommendation of Sir Ian Kennedy, who is not a clinician. How can the panel justify following that advice rather than that of the country’s most respected gatherings of experts in this field? How can it be right, if this closure happens in Leeds, for the Yorkshire and Humber region to go from enjoying the highest standards of collocation in the country to having the lowest?
The Safe and Sustainable model of children’s heart surgery is also dependent on networks of care, but whereas the Leeds network was recognised as “excellent”, Newcastle’s was regarded as “poor”. Why is the Yorkshire and Humber moving from a centre that delivers an excellent network to one with a record of delivering a poor one?
The JCPCT accepted the advice that 90% of doctors in the relevant areas of option B would be happy to refer to Newcastle, yet the referring doctors in Yorkshire and Humber have never been asked about that. That is simply outrageous.
I am aware that there has been a referral from the joint overview and scrutiny committee in Yorkshire, which we fully support and insist is properly investigated. We must also consider the very worrying situation in Glasgow. The Yorkhill unit is currently failing and a separate report by Sir Ian Kennedy stated:
“The panel had significant concerns about important aspects of the service in the surgical unit and in the broader congenital heart network. Of most concern was a lack of leadership and coherent team working. Also of concern was a sense that the provision of paediatric intensive care may be unsafe if critical staffing problems are not addressed.”
That has not been part of the review, however, and extraordinarily the Scottish Government have now decided that three surgeons performing 300 operations is safe in Scotland. However, that is not considered to be safe in Yorkshire. That is simply unacceptable. Today we are saying that we have no confidence in the review and that we want the whole process to be reconsidered.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
In south-west London, the NHS has just proposed to close the A and E, maternity unit and various other services at my local hospital, St Helier. It will take 200,000 people longer to get to hospital in an emergency. On its website, outlining why it is doing this, NHS South West London states that providers
“will have to deliver £370 million savings each year…a reduction of around 24% in their costs.”
Yet thanks to birth rates, an ageing population and poor health due to poverty, A and E visits will go up 20% in five years and births will increase by 10%. The area’s four hospitals are overcrowded now, so let us try cramming the same number of patients into just three.
What is worse is that there is no extra funding for the hospitals that remain. In no way do I support the hospital closures in north London, but at least that area gets an extra £138 million for “out of hospital” care to cope with the closures. Down in south-west London, we will get nothing. If St Helier loses its A and E, visits to the remaining three hospitals will rise by a third. Many will have to be admitted, but, with no extra funding, where can they go? Will they go on to the corridors, as in the 1990s?
It is claimed that 50% of A and E patients will go to GPs or community services instead, but even the report by the watchdog, the national clinical advisory team, does not believe that they could cope. That is a key paper and no cuts should take place without the public knowing what the watchdog thinks, so it should be published immediately. NCAT is right to be sceptical about whether GPs can halve the numbers going to A and E. Clinical commissioning obviously makes that very attractive for GPs, but for most people in my constituency it is easier to go to a walk-in centre or A and E than to a GP, so A and E visits have continued to rise year after year. The fact that GPs, who are making all the financial decisions, will get more funding if there are fewer A and E visits, does not mean that people will stop going. Apparently, some GPs now realise that those plans are looking very dodgy. A poll of Sutton’s GPs has shown a majority against the closure and a similar poll is taking place of Merton’s GPs that will, I am sure, show the same.
It is not just St Helier’s A and E that is under threat—so is its maternity unit. However, of the four hospitals, St Helier has the only maternity unit that meets clinical standards. If we lose St Helier, the other three hospitals will need to deliver a third more babies than they do now. It is widely accepted that maternity units delivering more than 6,000 births a year are a bad thing. It is far better, and far safer, to have slightly smaller units with good midwife cover, but not in south-west London, it seems.
We will lose our children’s unit and other services, such as intensive care. The “Better Services Better Value” review states that, to compensate, GPs will force patients from all around south-west London to go to St Helier for minor, planned treatments, but who would want an operation, even a routine one, in a hospital as depleted as St Helier? What is more, making people in St Helier drive across the suburbs for A and E and maternity and making people drive to St Helier for routine operations will add literally millions of miles of journeys to our already congested roads. No, the impact of that is not considered.
The other obvious questions have not been asked. Why would a patient from Kingston want to drive the best part of an hour to St Helier for a treatment they can currently get in Kingston? The other three hospitals do not like the idea either, as they cannot afford to lose the income from those planned treatments.
These plans are all over the place; they are a total shambles. Next Thursday, NHS South West London was due to rubber-stamp St Helier’s closures. It booked a big theatre in Croydon in readiness, but now it has put the decision off. Good, but this is obviously not the end. St Helier has been under threat before, but now it is under threat again from a combination of cuts and GP commissioning. The demands on our four hospitals are growing, not shrinking. I hope the Minister will reassure me, and my constituents, that that disaster will not happen on his watch.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, rise to speak about the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart surgery. The joint committee of primary care trusts—the decision-making body comprising local commissioners—was tasked with considering the pattern of children’s heart surgery services. On 4 July, it announced its decisions, which included the news that Leeds general infirmary will not provide children’s heart surgery in future.
The two-hour radius around the Leeds heart surgery unit reaches 14.5 million people. Including check-up appointments, the unit sees 10,000 children annually and performs about 350 operations.
I acknowledge that the decision was independent of the Government. Local council overview and scrutiny committees are free to refer decisions to the Secretary of State, via the independent panel. I heard this morning that our OSC has just done so; I welcome that move. Our Yorkshire body was due to meet on 24 July. Now that the committee has referred the decision to the Health Secretary, I hope he will revisit it based on the four tests stipulated for the redesign of services.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
If my hon. Friend is correct—and I am sure he is—in saying that his local authority OSC has referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the process is that the OSC explains why it does not agree with the decision and asks my right hon. Friend to refer it to the independent reconfiguration panel for consideration. The panel will then respond to my right hon. Friend and state whether it thinks the decision is right or wrong.
Jason McCartney
I thank the Minister. I said earlier that the decision would go to the Secretary of State via the independent panel. I look forward to its going through that process.
The first test for redesigning services is that there should be clear clinical benefit. The health impact assessment was that option G—to keep Leeds open—had fewer negative impacts than the chosen option. The second test is clinician support. There is no evidence that the decision has the support of clinicians; in fact, most have given their support to the Leeds unit.
The third test involves the views of the public. Surely nothing can be clearer than the views of the 600,000 people who signed the petition to keep the Leeds unit open, and the admirable cross-party support for the campaign. The fourth and final test is that there should be support for patient choice. A survey in west and south Yorkshire clearly shows that patients would not travel up to Newcastle.
Many constituents with experience of the Leeds unit have been in touch since the announcement on 4 July.
Greg Mulholland
The evidence clearly shows that Newcastle will not hit the magic number of 400, making the point of the process farcical. As we now know that Glasgow will continue, but will perform only 300 operations a year, there will be two underperforming units, and we will have lost Leeds, which could easily reach those numbers. Does that not make the whole thing a farce?
Jason McCartney
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is an assumption that all the patients who have been going to the Leeds unit will automatically migrate to Newcastle. That is a big flaw in the assessment, and I look forward to further exploration of that matter.
Constituents who have been in touch with me include teenager Seb, who recently did work experience with me. He had three heart operations and a pacemaker fitted at Leeds. He wants the Yorkshire unit to stay open; he stresses the fact that there are good transport links to the Leeds unit.
Paul told me about his 10-year-old stepson who suffered a cardiac arrest last August. His stepson had a defibrillator fitted internally, which he will have for the rest of his life. Paul said the Leeds location was key for their family.
Ruth told me about her six-month-old daughter Eleanor who was born with a heart defect caused by Down’s syndrome. Ruth fears for the emotional and financial stress families will be put under by the longer travelling distances, as parents try to hold down their jobs, care for other children and fulfil other responsibilities.
I was also contacted by the grandparents and, separately, the parents and siblings of four-year-old Lily Rose, who had surgery in the Yorkshire unit. They asked how a four-year-old was expected to cope at such a traumatic time without being able to see her mummy each day. The emotional impact on the rest of the family would be enormous. They stressed that distance from the centre is extremely important. They reiterated the population figures: 14.5 million people are within two hours of Leeds, whereas only 3 million are within two hours of Newcastle.
Those cases are real; the families were in touch with me over the past two weeks. In the past year, I have spoken in the Chamber about George Sutcliffe, Ben Pogson and Joel Bearder who, with their families, have been campaigning locally for the Leeds unit to stay open. I compliment them and all the families who have worked so hard on the campaign, and will continue to do so.
It is clear that the plans do not meet the four tests, which are factual; they are not about emotion. I look forward to the flawed decision eventually being referred by the independent panel to the Secretary of State so that the tests can be looked at again. I firmly believe the JCPCT decision clearly fails all the four tests for redesigning services, and I look forward to its being reconsidered.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On 4 July, a committee of primary care trust chief executives made the extraordinary decision to end children’s heart surgery and intensive care at one of the best performing and largest centres in England: Royal Brompton hospital, a specialist heart and lung hospital that treats children and adults from all over the country who have some of the most severe forms of heart and lung disease. It was quite a surprise for the doctors and other staff at Royal Brompton to find out last year that they were earmarked for closure. The national review panel that made the recommendation, in February 2011, had previously specified that for children’s heart surgery centres to be viable they must have four surgeons each doing at least 100 operations every year, and they must offer round-the-clock care.
Royal Brompton has four surgeons, each undertaking more than 100 operations every year and it offers round-the-clock care. It also has a safety and outcome record of which any centre would be proud. Rates of patient satisfaction at the hospital are exceptionally high.
The national review of paediatric heart surgery set out to reduce the number of hospitals offering children’s heart surgery, because it was felt that in some areas surgeons did not have enough cases to maintain their skills in the longer term. London has three centres, although two of them, Royal Brompton and Great Ormond Street, are recognised national specialist centres and treat patients from all over the country. The decision was made to close a London centre, and divert its patients to the remaining two, once their facilities are improved and extended, at significant cost to the taxpayer. A proposed solution to develop a network in London that would mean closer collaboration between the three existing centres, but no closures, was ignored.
Time prevents me from going into detail about why Royal Brompton drew the short straw of closure; it came down to a complicated scoring mechanism that eventually ended up in the High Court. I must stress, because it is of utmost importance, that there was never any suggestion that Royal Brompton’s clinical services for children are anything other than first rate. A better insight may be provided by the comments of a civil servant at a meeting of the London specialised commissioning group on 26 April:
“It is likely that the rest of the country will take the view that London should take its share of the pain of closures and will seek to make one closure in the capital in order to make closures elsewhere more palatable.”
Removing children’s surgery and intensive care from Royal Brompton will have devastating consequences, and not just for the young patients who value the hospital’s cardiac care so highly. Losing its children’s intensive care unit will destroy Royal Brompton’s world-class paediatric respiratory service, which specialises in the treatment of children with cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and a number of severe and complex respiratory conditions. Without the back-up of intensive care and on-site anaesthesia, doctors will not be able to undertake the more complex specialist treatments they do now, because they will consider it unsafe to do so.
Royal Brompton’s respiratory teams also undertake groundbreaking research into important areas such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma, lung disease, inflammation of the airways and neuromuscular conditions. That research can be carried out only at a specialist hospital, where the combination of clinical expertise and the type and number of patients seen provides the necessary conditions. Without an intensive care unit and provision for anaesthesia, research will simply not be possible.
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate case for the Royal Brompton unit. The chief executive of Little Hearts Matter says that, in the Glasgow case, a unit that does 300 operations can be made perfectly safe by other means, without closing units. Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration at the fact that in the Royal Brompton, Leeds and other places, those involved are not prepared to do that? It does not make sense.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention, because, in case my comments are seen as special pleading from the hospital, I was just coming on to mention some independent recommendations and sources that support the argument that, if there is no opportunity for research, and if experts—in Leeds, as well as the Royal Brompton—are prevented from working to the level of their abilities, many are likely to seek work elsewhere, possibly outside the UK.
Dr Neil Gibson, a consultant in paediatric respiratory medicine at Glasgow’s royal hospital for sick children, wrote to the chair of the review as follows:
“The unit at the Royal Brompton Hospital from a paediatric respiratory point of view is truly one of the world’s leading centres with an already impressive track record…There is a significant potential for irreparable damage to be made to the only world class Paediatric Respiratory Research Unit in the United Kingdom.”
Professor J. Stuart Elborn, president of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society, wrote that
“high quality research is a key determinant of the ability of a centre such as the Royal Brompton to retain and recruit the world leading clinical and academic staff on whom its respiratory services depend. Adverse impact upon the ability of the clinical staff to carry out cutting-edge research will undermine the sustainability of the clinical services, to the detriment of its patients.”
Asthma UK, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, and the Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Family Support Group wrote a joint letter to the chair of the committee, saying:
“We have explicitly mentioned respiratory research because it is an issue of fundamental importance to each of our charities because of the excellence of the Royal Brompton’s paediatric respiratory research and clinical trials programmes and the importance of that work for improving patient outcomes in the future.”
Patients and staff at Royal Brompton are understandably deeply distressed at the prospect of losing their high-performing children’s heart unit, soon to be followed by their specialist respiratory services. They do not understand how such a decision can be made by bureaucrats who have never visited the hospital and have no specialist knowledge of the care provided there. They have written to their MPs and to the Secretary of State. Indeed, one resourceful mother brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister in Downing street last Thursday.
The Secretary of State for Health assures the parents of these seriously poorly children, and the dedicated teams that treat them, that this is a matter not for him, but for the NHS. For the sake of the thousands of children whose care will be damaged by the decision of Sir Neil McKay’s committee, the sake of the research programmes that will be destroyed, and the sake of common sense, I hope that the Minister of State will realise that the time has come for him to meet clinicians from the Royal Brompton and at least hear what they have to say. Perhaps he will be able to persuade them that destroying NHS services and research programmes that are viewed by international peers as among the best in the world is a good idea. I wish him luck in doing so.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am very fortunate never to have been in a situation where I have continuously required alcohol to blot out misery or pain. I am fortunate enough to have never been so drunk in a public place that my safety or personal dignity was compromised. In fact, I abhor drunkenness, public or otherwise. It upsets and frightens me that some people become so inebriated that they are incapable of standing, speaking or securing their safety.
Although I do go to the pub, like hundreds of thousands of professional women up and down the country, I do most of my drinking at home. I probably do not think I am doing anything wrong because, every day, women go home after work and pour themselves a large glass of wine—and then another. How can it be wrong? I do not get drunk, throw up in the street, or wake up with a hangover. Yet could that be why alcohol consumption among women is becoming a problem, albeit one that may not present itself for decades?
Alcohol consumption by women has been rising steadily since the 1960s. Since 2002 alone, the number of alcohol-related admissions accounted for by women has more than doubled, from just below 200,000 to more than 400,000 in 2010. Although I accept that there is some debate about those sets of figures, the trend is undeniably upward, not downward. Alcohol consumption by women remains at a historic high, but it is interesting to note that it is falling at a faster rate among 16 to 24-year-olds. However, a significant number of middle-aged and older women, usually on higher incomes, prefer to drink at home to dangerous levels. It is the silent majority of drinkers we should be looking to prevent from becoming risky, harmed or dependent drinkers.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
This is a very serious issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the silent majority are very much the problem, because they simply do not seek help?
Tracey Crouch
I agree entirely. We should remember that a significant number of people in this country do not drink at all; it is those who drink to excessive levels whom we need to be concerned about.
Since the 1960s, many more women have entered the work force. Some have put off raising families and the associated responsibilities in favour of pursuing their career. As a result, they have much more money and time to spend drinking. That is statistically demonstrated by the fact that women in managerial or professional roles admit to drinking almost double the amount drunk by women on lower incomes.
Where the drinking takes place, and not just the quantity, is a cause for concern. While men still account for the majority of regular pub goers, women are more likely to drink at home, drinking cheaper supermarket wine that is aggressively marketed and probably bought in bulk.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that providing calorific information, as opposed to just the unit content of alcohol, on a bottle might have a significant impact on a large number of women who care a lot about the calories that they consume? If that was set out on alcohol packaging, it might help to alleviate the problems that she mentions.
Tracey Crouch
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Labelling of alcohol has improved significantly over the past few years, particularly in relation to pregnant women.
In many ways, drinking at home poses a real issue. It is difficult to assess the true extent of the problem of home drinking because the only data we have to go on are results from surveys, and many respondents are likely to under-report their consumption. However, recent studies have shown a clear link between harm and home drinking. An overwhelming 93% of recent interviewees who had all suffered alcohol-related harms bought the majority of their alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets. With alcohol now part of most people’s weekly shop, and women less likely to buy alcohol in pubs, it is no surprise that the impact of home drinking on a person’s health is likely to be more pronounced among women. Little stigma attaches to home drinking, and it is perhaps only later in life that women realise that there was any drawback to what they have been doing. Liver damage is an obvious related condition, but breast cancer and dementia are also often cited as conditions with a link to alcohol.
Given that what somebody does in their own home is a matter for them, what role is there for the Government in tackling the issue? The introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol is a welcome development and will tackle many alcohol-related problems, but I doubt very much that it will tackle the high level of drinking among well-off and professional women. It may dissuade somebody who is doing the weekly shop from taking advantage of deep discounting, and prevent the pre-loading that goes on among some younger drinkers, but more needs to be done on education and awareness.
For professional women drinking at home who do not come into contact with the traditional services that offer alcohol-based education and interventions, the workplace could prove particularly important. Alcohol Concern is championing the need for businesses to take a responsible approach to alcohol, calling for the inclusion of an alcohol policy in the corporate governance code. In principle, workplace interventions should definitely be encouraged, and I hope that the Government will support that campaign.
Undoubtedly, home drinking is extremely difficult to quantify. The only indication we have of the scale of the harm done is the level of alcohol-related admissions. It is therefore a concern that the official measurements used to calculate alcohol-related hospital admissions could be altered in the near future to reflect only those admissions where alcohol is a primary diagnosis. That could potentially exclude the reporting of conditions for which excessive alcohol consumption were partly responsible, such as a broken leg as a result of falling at home, or even domestic violence. I urge the Government to reconsider carefully the changes to the measurements. If they do not, we may never truly understand the scale of the problem, and the idea that we could achieve the targets set out by the Prime Minister for reducing alcohol dependency could be simply farcical.
A vast number of women, especially in professional roles, are steadily drinking at home to the detriment of their health. That is an issue on which it is difficult to provide direct intervention, but not one that we should simply ignore. I hope that this Government, who are responsibly trying to tackle alcohol misuse, will recognise the problem and do whatever they can to ensure that it is not simply left to fester behind the closed doors of homes up and down the country.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Like many other Members, I should like to say a few words about the outcome of the Safe and Sustainable review. Children’s heart surgery services in Glenfield, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), have been earmarked for closure—a decision that came as shattering news when we heard it the other week to many of the staff who work there and many families of patients who have been treated there.
Many of my constituents have got in touch with me, and I have also been contacted by people across Leicester and the country. I do not have time to go through everything that they said, but Stacey Whiteley from Lincoln has contacted me. People have contacted me from Corby, Coalville and Northampton to express deep concern and opposition to the decision. Many of them said that there were a number of questions that they wanted answered and, as I think that they are legitimate concerns, I want to put them on the record.
My constituents have asked me, for example, why the extra options I to L were not presented for public consultation. Other constituents have pointed out that option A was the most popular, but was apparently ignored. Some constituents have questioned the impartiality of some advisers to the panel and others have pointed out that, in the consultation document, option A was described as being consistently the highest scoring option. Why was there a U-turn and option B chosen? It is right that those decisions should be made by clinicians, but these are legitimate questions from people concerned about the decision.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but the decision was made not by clinicians but by commissioners, who have left the eastern side of England between Newcastle and England without a heart unit. Many of my constituents would have gone to Leicester in preference to Newcastle. Now they will probably travel to London or Liverpool.
Jonathan Ashworth
Indeed. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would have been welcome in Leicester. He is quite right: where do our constituents in the east of the country, between Newcastle and London, go? That is something else that many of my constituents have raised with me.
I wish to concentrate on the biggest deficiency of the decision, which is the impact on our world-class ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—service. On Friday, the Secretary of State announced that he would accept the recommendation to shift our ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham. In Leicester, we have had a brilliant, world-renowned ECMO service for 20 years.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting my intervention, as I cannot speak in the debate because I am a Front-Bench spokesperson on health. Is he aware of the international evidence that shows that Glenfield’s ECMO survival rates for children are 50% to 75% higher than other centres? Those very good survival rates, and the benefits that they bring for children, must be taken into consideration as part of the review.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is right, and she makes the point with her usual eloquence and insight. I pay tribute to the work that she has done and, indeed, the work of other Leicestershire Members—I see that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) is in the Chamber—on the ECMO service. I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet a delegation of east midlands MPs, as we had a useful discussion.
Giles Peek, a consultant paediatric heart surgeon, said last year of the ECMO service:
“We use it not just after surgery but also to stabilise children and to stop them dying before surgery. We are always full and often take children from other hospitals…Our role at Glenfield as a national reference centre for this treatment is important and underestimated.”
I fear that Giles Peek’s concerns have come true and that our ECMO service has been underestimated.
I was grateful that the Minister said in the meeting that the Secretary of State’s decision was based on the Agnes review, but there are other ECMO experts who disagree with that review, so I hope that he will consider publishing the Agnes report. In the few minutes I have left, I shall run through the points that various ECMO experts have made. For example, Glenfield has a world-class facility with more than 20 years’ worth of service. There are deep concerns that by uprooting it from Leicester to Birmingham expertise will be lost along the way. Mr Kenneth Palmer, an ECMO expert, gave a stark warning on Radio Leicester today that, as a result of shifting the children’s ECMO service from Leicester to Birmingham, lives would be lost, saying:
“They could never have the same survival rate in another unit if you move it like this. Leicester has one of the highest survival rates in the world, 10%-20% higher than the normal survival rate in the world. To come up to the same skill it will take 5 years at least.”
He has been joined by other experts who have warned about the impact of shifting the unit from Leicester. Jim Fortenberry, the chair of the ECMO leadership council in Atlanta, when asked whether he agreed that lives would be lost, said:
“I do agree with that unfortunately. I think the risk is great that by attempting to move and start over that you’d really start the learning curve all over again and the improved outcomes take time and experience to develop, and so by effect starting over on the learning curve you certainly would potentially put lives at stake and it could be very significant.”
I accept that the Minister takes advice from experts, but given that there is one set of experts making one argument, presumably he receives advice from a different set. If he published his evidence, those of us who are laymen on health policy can try to make our own judgments as those experts scrutinise one another’s work.
Concerns have been raised about the Birmingham facility and whether it can deal with the new ECMO service. Dr Andrew Coe, a paediatrician from Coventry, said on Radio Leicester this morning that he was
“not convinced that Birmingham will cope with increased demand following closure”
of Glenfield. It was suggested to me that if the 80 ECMO nurses at Leicester are not prepared to leave Glenfield, it will take up to eight years for nurses in Birmingham to be trained to the appropriate level of expertise.
I conclude by mentioning the family from South Cambridgeshire, which the Secretary of State represents, who appeared on Radio Leicester this morning. They said clearly and movingly that the service they received for their little girl was the best they could receive and went beyond what staff needed to do. I hope that the Minister will give us guidance on what is next for Leicester’s ECMO service. I hope that he will consider publishing his evidence, and that we can have some sort of review of, or at least look again at, the shift of Leicester’s ECMO service to Birmingham.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I wish to raise the issue of neuroblastoma. I do so as someone who is proud of this Government’s record on the health service and who strongly supports their introduction of the cancer drugs fund.
Neuroblastoma is an aggressive childhood cancer affecting about 100 new children in the UK each year. It is the most common cancer diagnosed in infancy and is responsible for 15% of cancer deaths in children. There are very few treatments available in the United Kingdom for children with high-risk neuroblastoma, particularly those who have relapsed, and they have to travel abroad for treatment, generally to Germany or the USA.
I had never heard of neuroblastoma before my constituent, Mr John Macglashan of Dunstable, came to see me in March this year. His two-year-old daughter Lilly has stage 4 neuroblastoma. The Neuroblastoma Alliance, along with the people of Dunstable and the surrounding area with the help of The Dunstable Gazette, have helped to raise funds to send Lilly for treatment in America. The whole family is going through an enormous ordeal, and I want to relay their experiences to the House, and make four suggestions to the Minister as to how the UK can improve the provision of treatment for children with neuroblastoma.
First, I know that the Government want high-quality treatment for children with neuroblastoma to be available in the United Kingdom, and I strongly support that. To that end, the Government are participating in a European collaborative research network on neuroblastoma through the Société Internationale d’Oncologie Pédiatrique en Europe. That European trial does not appear to adhere to UK ethical standards of offering the best treatment available as a baseline for all children meeting the eligibility criteria. I urge the Minister to make sure that the best treatment available is offered as a baseline for all children in the United Kingdom.
My second concern is that clinical trials in the UK are taking far too long to begin. In March 2010, the Department of Health agreed to commence a new trial to give monoclonal antibody therapy to all children who might benefit from it, but according to the Neuroblastoma Alliance, that has not yet begun. The Government should ensure that this trial commences as quickly as possible.
Thirdly, it is important that the Government ensure that there is a standard procedure for allocating funds for treatment abroad across all primary care trust areas. That is particularly important as there are currently no NICE guidelines on the subject, which remains important while there is no viable treatment available in the UK. My constituent Mr Macglashan has taken his daughter Lilly to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York at considerable personal expense and with huge funds raised by the Neuroblastoma Alliance, a charity that campaigns for children with the condition. Mr Macglashan tells me that in the same hospital there are children from Norway, France, Spain, Italy and Greece, all of whom are being funded by their national health services while his family has had to rely on charity.
Fourthly, it is important that the best treatment options from abroad, whether from Germany or the USA, should be examined and, where the clinical evidence supports the case, introduced into the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. At the moment, there are too few options available for high-risk neuroblastoma children who fail to achieve a lasting remission after front-line treatment. In the UK, parents see a system that gives up on their children too soon while there should still be hope. Much higher numbers of children are surviving for much longer with the American treatment, and some are achieving permanent remission following treatment at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York. We need to make sure that that level of expertise is available here in the United Kingdom.
This is not simply a call for even greater NHS spending than the Government are currently budgeting for, as the costs of prolonged chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the UK are not cheap and have been shown to have less success than the treatments provided in America. It appears that the UK is not spending its health budget as effectively as it could in this regard, and I ask the Government to look again at the issue. The NHS already sends children suffering from cancer for treatment in America—for proton radiation treatment, for example—so no precedent would be set by sending more children for treatment in America and Germany.
Finally, I ask the Government to look at the training of consultants in neuroblastoma, as there are too few who specialise in this area.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) about children’s heart surgery at Glenfield hospital in Leicester. In view of the time limit, I will not repeat the issues to do with the Safe and Sustainable review, because those have been well rehearsed by other Members.
It is no great surprise that all Members, as well as all patients, all staff, all parents and all families, want the best services when dealing with children’s heart surgery. We are talking about very sick young babies and children, and there is no doubt that high-quality services are wanted across the country. At the same time, we have to recognise that in the 21st-century national health service there are bound to be reconfigurations. The reconfiguration that has been worked on by the Safe and Sustainable review arises out of what happened in Bristol, and there is a very good reason for what it proposes. As we have heard, there are some serious questions still to be answered about the process and the way in which decisions have been made.
In the debate in this Chamber in June 2011, I talked about the ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation —service offered in Leicester, which the hon. Member for Leicester South discussed. It is a world-class, excellent service, and the question is what will happen to it if the children’s heart surgery unit is moved from Leicester to Birmingham. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thank the Minister very much for meeting a delegation of east midlands MPs this afternoon to talk about this. ECMO is a nationally commissioned service and the Secretary of State is therefore required to sign off the move. I understand that he accepted the recommendations of the panel last Friday.
Those of us who are most interested in this and have been listening to constituents and to consultants and staff at the Glenfield unit have a number of questions to raise with the Minister. I would like to be sure of three things before I can be happy with how the decision has been taken. First, before the Secretary of State signed off the move, was he aware of the misgivings of experts that have been described by the hon. Member for Leicester South? Letters are still arriving from international experts. Indeed, since I have been sitting in the debate I have seen a letter that has arrived from the medical director of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I should like to read out a couple of quotes. The first is from Stephen Conrad, who is chairman of the steering committee of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation and who says that
“moving an ECMO program is non-trivial and amounts to much more than moving equipment and some key personnel. Excellent outcomes that are now characteristic of the Leicester group, whose work was instrumental in the worldwide adoption of pediatric and adult ECMO, would not be maintained following such a move.”
Liz Kendall
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on, and support for, this important issue. Does she agree that this is not simply a matter of moving the machines but also about the expertise and skills of the staff, which would not be easy to move? Leading international experts on ECMO say that it could take between five and 20 years for the excellent level of service that is available in Glenfield to be made available anywhere else in the country.
Nicky Morgan
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Leicester South referred to Kenneth Palmer, who was retained to give his expert advice to the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts on the move. Since the decision was made on 4 July, he has said:
“You will take over 20 years of experience from one of the world’s absolute best ECMO units and throw it away and then to rebuild it in another place and probably it will take at least 5 years to have some kind of quality and probably 20 years to come back to top quality, if it’s ever possible.”
As the hon. Lady said, it is about the staff. Of course the machinery is important, but what has been built up in Leicester, and what it is most renowned for, is the expertise of its consultants, nursing staff, and all the other staff. That is what people particularly rely on. In addition, Leicester has the only paediatric mobile ECMO unit, which is often called out to fly by helicopter to other parts of the country to retrieve patients and take them back to Leicester. I hope that the Secretary of State and the JCPCT were aware of that when they made their decision.
My constituent, Mrs Edith Felstead, who wrote to me and talked about the risk of moving the service, says that survival rates at Glenfield are 20% better than in the rest of the world. The point that I made last year and still want to make is that we have an excellent, internationally renowned service, and if we move it, we must be sure that we are doing so to obtain better outcomes. Will the Minister tell me what advice was given to the JCPCT about the likely outcomes if the move were made?
The rather hefty tome that was published to help the JCPCT to make its decision on 4 July, refers to the secretariat being able to provide “reasonable assurance” that paediatric respiratory ECMO could be transferred safely to Birmingham. I am concerned about that phrase. What assurances have been given? In particular, if the move goes ahead and has to be implemented, what will happen if it then becomes clear in the course of preparing for the move that the service cannot be safely moved and we need to undo some of what has happened as a result of the review?
As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, two narrow questions could be independently reviewed in relation to the Leicester move. I very much hope that following the meeting that we have just had and this debate, the Minister will agree to such a review. I would like to know what advice was available to the Secretary of State and to the JCPCT and the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services before they made their decision.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I offer you my congratulations on the honorary degree that you received yesterday from Swansea university?
I recognise that I may repeat many of the things that have been said, but this is such an important issue for constituents in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire that I make no apology for doing so. I am going to talk about the Safe and Sustainable review as well. We have received a number of e-mails from charities yesterday, one of which said:
“As some MPs look to reignite”
the debate about changes to children’s heart units
“we urge MPs to think about the children.”
Frankly, I found that rather offensive, because throughout the whole campaign I have only ever thought about the children.
When I worked at Martin House children’s hospice, I saw the effect on families when they were driven apart because the poorly child had to be a long distance away. On my visit a week or so ago to the unit in Leeds, I met a family who live in Sheffield. They brought their baby who was a few days old into the unit when the baby suddenly went very blue. Thankfully, because of the excellent work at the unit, that baby’s life was saved. That child was described as “marginal” in the review meeting on 4 July. That is not my description, but that of the decision makers. That is a shocking statement in my opinion. I also met another family who live in Sheffield. The father is making three trips a day between Leeds and Sheffield because there are other siblings at home. How on earth are such people expected to travel three times a day up to Newcastle?
I recognise that the review has been independent of Government, but I have grave concerns over the way in which it has been run. I support a review, because I want the best services for our children. I was grateful for the Minister’s comments earlier, when he said that the call-in process means that the matter will go to an independent panel. I would be grateful for clarification of whether that panel is independent of the JCPCT.
Mr Simon Burns
May I reassure my hon. Friend that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel is nothing to do with the JCPCT, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me? It is an independent organisation that is there to look at reconfigurations across the country that are referred to it by my right hon. Friend following an oversight and scrutiny committee writing to him.
Stuart Andrew
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that the independent review body will look at the issues that I raise.
Logical health planning clearly dictates that services should be based on where the population live. Doctors should travel to where the patients are, rather than the other way around. Even the British Congenital Cardiac Association has said that:
“Where possible, the location of units providing paediatric cardiac surgery should reflect the distribution of the population to minimise disruption and strain on families.”
After all, it is not buildings that perform operations, but the doctors and surgeons within them. That definition seemed okay in the case of Birmingham. The review stated:
“The Birmingham centre should remain in all options due to the high level of referrals from the large population in its immediate catchment area.”
Why on earth does the argument about the large immediate population not apply equally to Leeds?
The independent analysis of patient flows states that many of the people in west and south Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire will probably go to Birmingham, Liverpool or even London instead. The JCPCT reaches the figure of 403 surgical procedures for Newcastle on the basis of only 25% of the patients going there. Even that is doubtful. How was the figure of 25% arrived at?
Andrew Percy
It is very convenient that the 25% figure gets Newcastle just over the 400 mark. However, my constituents in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire will not travel to Newcastle at a rate of 25%. They will go straight up the M62 to Liverpool or head south to Birmingham or even London, which are much easier to get to.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that that is the case for constituents across Yorkshire and the Humber.
Greg Mulholland
I am happy to be working so closely with my hon. Friend on this matter. When all the evidence is considered, is not the reality that Leeds is being sacrificed simply to allow Newcastle to achieve a level of operations that it might not even achieve? That is no reason to close a good unit.
Stuart Andrew
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
The decision flies in the face of a fundamental aspect of the NHS constitution: patient choice. The JCPCT asserts that Newcastle could reach the minimum number of procedures if parents are “properly managed” to go to there. That is simply unacceptable. The whole point of patient choice is that people decide where they want to go.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said, the review ignored a petition of 600,000 people, counting it as only one response, when 22,000 text messages in support of the Birmingham unit were counted as 22,000 separate responses. Why was that?
The scores in the review were allocated to four bands. Each of the points from one to four were multiplied by the weighting. That gave 286 points to Newcastle and 239 points to Leeds. However, there was no clarification of how the figures had been arrived at. Also the figures were not definite, but were rounded up or down, which may have made a huge difference to the outcome.
As has been mentioned, clinical experts at the BCCA, the Bristol inquiry, the Paediatric Intensive Care Society and the Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists all say that surgical centres should be chosen on the basis of their having paediatric services all on one site. That is something that we enjoy in Leeds, which has a wonderful children’s hospital with all the services that are needed. On meeting such children, it is clear that they need the support not just of heart surgeons, but of other experts. In Newcastle, the extra support will be some 3 miles away. There will therefore be a worse service for people who live in and around Yorkshire, not the world-class service that we all want.
There is much more detail that I would like to go into. I sincerely hope that we will have a Back-Bench debate on this issue when we come back in the autumn, because it is of grave concern to hundreds of thousands of people in the Yorkshire region. We will not give up our fight to save our unit.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I wish to raise the issue of wet age-related macular degeneration and the treatments that are available.
The condition usually affects the sight of people from the age of 60, although it can affect people at an earlier age. AMD is the most common cause of sight loss in the western world. In the UK, more than 500,000 people have the condition and about 250,000 people are registered as visually impaired. Because people are living longer, the number of people who are affected by AMD is increasing.
Although the condition causes central vision loss and can have a devastating impact, it does not lead to complete blindness as sufferers retain their peripheral vision. Unfortunately, there is no known cure, but drugs are available that can slow the growth of blood vessels in the eye. Such anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medicines prevent blood vessels from forming or growing. Three drugs have been used in the treatment of wet AMD: Macugen, Lucentis and Avastin. It is the latter two drugs with which my speech is concerned.
Fundamentally, what is the difference between the two drugs? At first glance, the answer is the cost. Lucentis costs about £700 an injection, while Avastin costs £60. The bigger answer is that Avastin is not officially approved for eye treatments. Lucentis gained its European Medicines Agency approval in 2007. It is officially approved for use in eyes and is the treatment recommended in England and Wales by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The certification is based on extensive trials that show that is safe and effective for all lesion types in wet AMD. The trials have shown that it stabilises sight in more than 90% of cases and improves sight in 40% of cases.
The cheaper Avastin has not been approved by the EMA for use in treatments of the eye because it has not gone through the proper clinical trials. It has been approved as a treatment for colorectal cancers, and is therefore readily available. When used for colorectal cancers, the drug is injected into a vein in the arm. When it is used for the treatment of wet AMD, it is given into the eye.
The findings of two trials comparing Avastin and Lucentis have been published recently. Those are the comparison of age-related macular degeneration treatments trial, known as CATT, which was carried out in the United States, and the inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation trial, known as IVAN, which was carried out in the UK and was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The IVAN trial, which was NHS funded, involved 610 patients in 23 hospitals. It was one of the largest research projects studying eye diseases in the UK. The one-year results were presented at an international conference in May this year and have been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal, Ophthalmology.
The greatest debate about the differences between the two drugs is likely to be over their safety when used to treat wet AMD. Academics say that, overall, both drugs are extremely safe. My contention is that it is likely that cost pressures on the NHS will lead to increased use of Avastin. The IVAN researchers estimated that if the NHS were to substitute Lucentis for Avastin across the UK, it would save £84.5 million each year if 17,295 eyes were treated.
However, I am aware of the financial environment in which pharmaceutical companies operate. Like other industries, they manufacture products that must be sold at a profit, but in contrast to manufacturers in other industries their research and development costs are prohibitive. That means that they must make money on their investment. I recognise that they must not only regain their expenditure through profit but achieve profits to cover all the drugs that fail to get on to the market.
There has been criticism of NICE’s failure to recognise and adopt innovative new medicines. The UK is a world leader in medicines research, development and manufacture, but it is one of the slowest countries to enable patients to have access to innovative treatments. Avastin fits into that classification. I do not seek the Department’s licensing it immediately, but I call for the Government to establish an independent appraisal of it for use in ophthalmology. Clinicians are already using it off-label, so that would not be a leap in the dark. The savings that there would be for the NHS if the drug did work have already been quantified. However, if it is not safe, we must act to ensure the public’s health. I therefore ask the Minister to consider my request.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
My comments will focus on the treatment of one GP in my constituency and his patients in Kelvedon, and on the state of health services in Witham town.
With the Government rightly empowering patients and medical practitioners, it is deeply alarming to see how one GP in my constituency is being treated. Dr Conor Macnamara has served the people of Kelvedon for a quarter of a century and is currently a salaried GP at the Brimpton House surgery in Kelvedon. He has been a stalwart of our local community, and whole families throughout the locality respect and trust him. He has upheld the values of the NHS on the front line and enthusiastically supported local residents.
Despite Dr Macnamara’s strong record, the primary care trust, which is now called NHS Mid Essex, and the GP principal at Brimpton House surgery, Dr Alsayed, have decided to end his employment and stop him treating local patients. They did so at the end of last year without consulting his patients, and they issued a statement informing his patients of the decision before Dr Macnamara himself was formally notified of it.
The decision to remove Dr Macnamara, and the way in which it was carried out, have caused considerable consternation among local residents. They are up in arms, and they have signed a petition objecting to any attempt to remove this long-standing family doctor from Brimpton House surgery. Yesterday, alongside the patient action group, they handed in a petition and delivered a letter to Dr Alsayed, reiterating their wish to see Dr Macnamara reinstated. I pay tribute to them for their campaign and remain extremely disappointed by the lack of engagement by the PCT and Dr Alsayed in addressing local concerns, and by their failure to address Dr Macnamara’s concerns. In my view, that is a classic example of NHS bureaucracy overriding patient choice. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look into the matter and help us find a good resolution that will lead to Dr Macnamara’s reinstatement.
As well as ignoring patient choice in Kelvedon, NHS bureaucrats have neglected health provision in Witham town. It is a growing town, and the local community is being overlooked in the provision of health services. We have a growing population, and the demand for new health service provision is reaching breaking point. Our population is increasing and more and more new homes are being built, so the provision of good-quality local health services is vital. Instead of investing in local services, the PCT has shamelessly spent hard-pressed taxpayers’ money on more managers and administrators.
The number of patients registered at the four GP practices covering the town and surrounding villages has reached almost 30,000. Those patients are covered by just 13.5 whole-time equivalent GPs, which makes more than 2,000 patients per GP. That is 40% higher than the 2011 national average of about 1,600. Local people need more GPs instead of managers, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can offer us some advice as local health campaigners. We want to press the new clinical commissioning groups to increase local GP provision. Progress must be made, and my constituents in Witham would welcome any intervention and encouragement that he can provide to nudge the process along, particularly given the Government’s reforms.
The Government have rightly prioritised the NHS, and their reforms will help save it in a time of financial uncertainty. I hope they will now do everything possible to ensure that their commitment to support patient choice and invest in front-line health services can be delivered in Witham, to avoid a health crisis and bring much-needed and long-overdue benefits to my constituents.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
This has been an interesting and diverse debate, giving hon. Members an opportunity to raise a range of different subjects affecting their local communities and the health and well-being of their constituents. If there has been a main theme, it has been the Safe and Sustainable review of paediatric heart surgery. I fully recognise the strength of feeling and emotion on that difficult and sensitive subject, which is why so many Members have talked about it. They have included the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland); the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who mentioned the Brompton hospital in London, which is part and parcel of that review; the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who took interventions from the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall); and my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
I fully accept that the reorganisation of children’s cardiac services is a matter of real concern for the families involved, as indicated by the strength of feeling shown in the contributions of all the Members who have taken part in the debate. I know that some families have been disappointed by the outcome of the JCPCT’s recent decision. As hon. Members will know, children’s heart surgery has been a subject of concern for more than 15 years. Clinical experts and national parents groups have repeatedly called for change, and there is an overwhelming feeling that change is long overdue.
As passionately as people want to defend their local hospitals, it is far more important to ensure safety and quality of care for all children with congenital heart disease. We must ensure that those children continue to receive the very best care that the NHS can deliver, and I know that no Member would disagree with that overarching principle. That was what the NHS Safe and Sustainable review was aimed at, and as I have told many Members over the past 22 months, it was wholly independent of Government.
The review was led by clinicians and had the support of the Royal Colleges and national charities. Its conclusions were clear: for children with congenital heart disease to receive the very best care, specialist surgical expertise needs to be concentrated in a smaller number of centres. That will mean that surgeons have sufficient clinical work to maintain and develop their skills; that they can provide those services around the clock; and that they can train and develop the next generation of surgeons. I must stress that the JCPCT’s decision is not about closing or cutting back on children’s heart services—quite the opposite. It is about ensuring that the whole range of children’s heart services can deliver the very best care now and in future.
I thank in passing my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South for meeting me earlier this afternoon to discuss the important issue of ECMO and how it directly affects Glenfield hospital in Leicester.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am afraid other duties in the House prevented me from being at the meeting. Had I been there, I would have supported what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said.
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Not only am I sure he would agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South said, but I have considerable sympathy with him, as he was unable to attend the meeting owing to other pressing parliamentary duties in his role as Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. To be even fairer to the right hon. Gentleman, the meeting was originally planned for 3 pm or 3.15 pm, but unfortunately, neither my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman nor I would have been able to attend because we were at that moment in the Chamber.
I understand from the nature of our discussions, as they will, that this is a difficult issue, because there are a number of complicated parts to the problem. I hear what they and other hon. Members have said about the Safe and Sustainable review, but I stick to my original position. The review is independent and is carried out not by the Government, but by the JCPCT. It would be inappropriate for me to become directly involved, to take sides or to pass comment because it would be felt that I was interfering. If hon. Members’ local authorities disagree with the decisions or recommendations of the JCPCT, their overview and scrutiny committees can write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to express their disagreement with the decision as it affects their local community or local hospital, and to request that the matter be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel, so that it can consider it independently and come up with a decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley said, his local authority has today done just that. It may be helpful to him if I explain the procedure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives the representations and communication from the local authority overview and scrutiny committee specifying that it believes that the decision and recommendation as they affect the local hospital—Leeds, in my hon. Friend’s case—are wrong. The overview and scrutiny committee then asks my right hon. Friend whether he will refer the matter to the independent reconfiguration panel. I do not want to prejudge, but it is almost certain that my right hon. Friend will refer the matter. It will be then be up to the IRP, which is independent, to look at the recommendation and the criticisms made by the overview and scrutiny committee, and to reach a conclusion, which will be an independent conclusion, on whether it agrees with the recommendation or the criticisms of it and perhaps of the procedures involved. The IRP will then make my right hon. Friend aware of its independent view of the complaint.
Jason McCartney
Will the Minister clarify the time scale of the procedure he has described and also tell us who has the final say?
Mr Burns
It is difficult to give a time scale for this reason: as soon as my right hon. Friend receives representations from the overview and scrutiny committee, he will consider as quickly as he can whether to make a referral. As I have said, in the life of the IRP, every request for a referral has been granted—that is certainly true of my right hon. Friend’s time in office, but I believe it is also true of previous Secretaries of State under the previous Government. It is up to the IRP. I know of one example of my right hon. Friend requesting that the IRP respond within a certain time frame, but that was on a single issue. It is possible, with regard to the Safe and Sustainable review, that a number of referrals could be made by different OSCs in relation to the recommendations—I do not know but it is a possibility.
Stuart Andrew
Will the independent panel have the power to request all the documentation that the Safe and Sustainable review and the JCPCT have been looking at? Will everything be released so that it can look at the evidence in detail?
Mr Burns
I think I can assure my hon. Friend that the IRP will have available to it all the evidence, in all shapes and forms, to help it to form its final opinion of the complaint referred to it. I hope that that reassures him. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and the hon. Member for Leicester South that the same can apply with regard to the decision about ECMO. I have no doubt that Leicester city council will give consideration to that.
I shall briefly respond to the remaining issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made several extremely interesting suggestions. Some of them might not be in line with current Government thinking, but I shall certainly refer her ideas and views to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who deals with our alcohol strategy. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised an important issue, and again I will refer it to the Under-Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned the potential reconfiguration at St Helier hospital. As she will know, the proposals are still being worked on. There has not yet been a consultation process, but the decisions have been taken locally by the local NHS. I trust that, if and when there is a consultation process, she will get involved.
Mr Burns
I thought she would say that. That is very good. After the consultation, the due processes of reconfiguration can move forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) asked about Avastin. A study is being done into its effects. We are following that closely, and when we find out more we will consider the matter and potentially reach a judgment, but I cannot give him any commitments at the moment.
Finally, I turn to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I am sorry to hear about the problems that she highlighted on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to disappoint her, because she is my neighbour and I have to live with her on a weekly basis, but given the background to the case, I think it is a matter for the GP practice as the employer of the GP whom she mentioned. I encourage her to engage with Mid Essex PCT, even though it has no direct powers or role in this matter, and the clinical commissioning group in the mid-Essex area, because they are best placed to address the concerns about the provision of services for her constituents, which I know she is fearless in defending, protecting and promoting.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister. I wish him and those Members not staying for the other debates a happy and productive recess. We now move to a short debate on foreign and commonwealth affairs, after which we will proceed to a debate on the environment, food and rural affairs. Members listed under other topics will then be taken in the general debate. We still have the five-minute limit on speeches.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Once again I wish to raise the issue of human rights and the death penalty in India. I pay tribute to four organisations—Kesri Lehar, Liberation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—that have continued to expose the Indian Government’s failure to address human rights abuses effectively. Kesri Lehar launched the “Wave for Justice” campaign, along with a petition, which has now been signed by more than 100,000 people, to seek a full debate in Parliament on the issue, which I hope we can secure later in the year.
I want to raise three issues of concern. The first issue is the historic failure of the Indian Government to bring to justice those who perpetrated the massacre of the Sikhs in Operation Blue Star in 1984, which started with the attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in the following decade, and was described as Indian’s hidden genocide. Despite various commissions of inquiry into abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial executions and secret cremations, Amnesty’s latest report confirms that the Indian Government have failed to hold the perpetrators to account. In 2004, on the 20th anniversary of the massacre, I launched a report in this House called “1984: Sikhs’ Kristallnacht”. We called for an independent commission of truth and justice, under the auspices of the United Nations, to investigate the slaughter. Since then there has been no progress and the Sikhs still await justice.
What is even more galling, however, is that two individuals—Jagdish Tytler and KPS Gill, who are both accused of playing leading roles in the human rights violations in 1984 to 1995—may well seek to visit Britain for the Olympics in their capacity as Olympic officials for India. It would be a travesty of justice and cause deep offence to the whole of the Sikh community in the United Kingdom if these brutes were allowed to enjoy this country’s hospitality.
The human rights abuses go on. Human rights NGOs have confirmed that human rights violations against minorities continue today, including against the Sikhs. Human Rights Watch’s latest report dealt with custodial killings and police abuses, including torture. On average, 1,500 people a year are dying in custody in Indian prisons and police stations, while rape is used as a form or torture. For 18 years the Indian Government have denied the UN rapporteur on torture access to India. Amnesty now reports that over the past two years 30 human rights defenders have been targeted for abuse by state and non-state organisations, with eight people being killed as a result. Meanwhile, the Indian Government have failed to repeal the laws that afford state impunity to human rights abusers. Indeed, impunity seems to be common for the perpetrators of human rights abuses in India. That is not acceptable by any standards.
The ultimate violation of human rights, however, is to take a person’s life. That is why there was such shock and anger at the Indian Government’s threat—made only months ago, after an eight-year hiatus—to implement the death penalty against people such as Professor Davinder Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana. Professor Bhullar was convicted only on a confession that was obtained by torture and later retracted. Balwant Singh Rajoana has already served 17 years on death row and has suffered enough. The threat of capital punishment for those individuals has been lifted for the time being, but now two thirds of the world has renounced the death penalty. I say as a friend of India that it is time India did so too.
I appreciate what both the last Government and this Government have done in making representations to the Indian Government over the years. I also pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done in pressing the Indian Government on these issues. However, I once again urge the Government to use our bilateral talks, and the EU-India human rights dialogue, to call on India to take decisive action to protect human rights and, in particular, to abolish the death penalty. It is time India addressed this issue. India is the largest democracy on the globe, yet it stands alone in the developing world in still supporting the death penalty. India should adhere to human rights and, at the same time, ensure that capital punishment is no longer a stain on the country.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The professionalism, valour and courage of our soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and those serving there now are as distinguished as any in our long military history. Some of our allies have already decided to withdraw their troops. They are not the nations that were not enthusiastic about the war, but those that have paid huge costs in blood and treasure. Canada withdrew its combat troops after a debate in its Parliament that was supported by every party. The Netherlands has also done so, and we now know that Australia and France intend to bring their troops home early.
The United Kingdom has lost 422 troops, and we have spent £20 billion, but that is only part of the cost. We must also take into account the number of troops who return from Afghanistan broken in body and in mind. Figures from America show that more of its veterans from Afghanistan take their lives after combat than die in combat. The same applied to our figures from the Falklands war. We know that the dying will continue.
A case in Pembrokeshire involved a soldier who had suffered grievously in Afghanistan. His death is not counted among the 422 casualties, however. In Afghanistan, he was shot twice and involved in two separate incidents involving improvised explosive devices, but his loved ones explained that the experience that haunted him was holding his best friend, who had lost a number of limbs in an explosion, and watching as the life retreated from his eyes. It was that experience that drove him to take his own life.
There are powerful reasons for saying that we are continuing to order soldiers to risk their lives for the cause in Afghanistan, but I do not believe that a case can be made for doing so any more. A recent briefing said that we needed to get all our equipment out of Afghanistan at enormous cost, because we did not want to see the Taliban riding round in British tanks in five years’ time. However, having gone into Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban and engaged in a civil war, the likelihood is that, by the time we leave, there will be another civil war and that it will be ruled by the Taliban once again.
For 10 years, we have heard optimism being expressed by all Governments, along with exaggerations of success and dismissals of the failures that mounted up, year after year. It was not necessarily a mistake to go there, although no British interests were threatened in 2001. It was, however, a terrible mistake to go into Helmand province. In our first five years in Afghanistan, only two of our soldiers died. Then, we provocatively stirred up the hornets’ nest in Helmand, in the foolish and mistaken belief that not a shot would be fired. Our operations in Helmand were described in the House at the time as being as futile as the charge of the Light Brigade, but we have now lost three times as many troops in Helmand as were lost in that charge.
It is a dereliction of duty for the House not to debate the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. We know that the people of this country are strongly in favour of such a withdrawal. In a recent by-election, a candidate from a minority party with only one policy—withdrawal from Afghanistan—gained 56% of the votes and humiliated all the other parties. We also know that 80% of the public want our troops to withdraw now, yet we are being distracted by the bread and circuses of all the events taking place this year, and we cannot find a moment in our parliamentary diary to discuss whether we should bring our troops home before we reach the point that Senator Kerry described when he was an officer in Vietnam in the final days of that war. He spoke of asking the agonising question: who will be the last soldier that I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I had hoped that, after the election of President Hadi in Yemen, I would no longer need to raise the situation in that country. Sadly, however, the situation has deteriorated even further since the election. Only last week, 22 people died in a suicide bomb attack in Sana’a. That attack followed a number of others perpetrated by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I remain deeply concerned that, even though the old regime has gone and President Hadi has been elected, there is still a major security problem in this beautiful but troubled country.
As the House knows, I was born in Yemen, and I spent the first nine years of my life there. I have the pleasure and privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen. I have not been able to visit the country over the past two years because of the security situation; so if it is bad for someone such as me and other Members, it is very bad for people in Yemen.
I am delighted to see at the Dispatch Box the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I want to pay tribute both to the Foreign Secretary and to him for all the good work they have done in ensuring they keep a dialogue going with the Yemeni Government and the Yemeni authorities. The Minister met last Thursday, as did I, Dr Abu Bakr al-Kurbi, the long-standing Foreign Minister of Yemen, and I know that useful discussions were held about the situation.
I am very pleased that Nicholas Hopton has taken over as our ambassador in Sana’a, although the difficulty of having an embassy there is recognised by the fact that this is truly a hardship post, and it is time limited, which is something we do not do to many of our embassies all over the world. The first issue, then, is security. What does the Minister have to say about the security situation in Yemen? What can we do to help the new Government? What can we do to ensure that they have the equipment and support they need?
A few years ago, I spoke of the need for one scanner at Sana’a airport, and I recently tabled a question asking whether the scanner had arrived, two years later, and was told that the information could not be released because it was not in the public interest to do so. I then put in a freedom of information request. I do not think it is a big deal to tell an MP whether a scanner that was promised two years ago has arrived at Sana’a airport. I hope that the Minister can provide that information in his reply.
The second limb of any discussion about Yemen is the humanitarian situation, and I want to pay tribute to my near constituency neighbour the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) for all the work he has done. He has attended a number of the Friends of Yemen conferences, and £2.5 billion has been pledged over the last few years. I know that our Government have given £31.7 million in humanitarian aid. It remains the case that 500,000 people are displaced as a result of the situation in Yemen, and it remains the case that 50% of the Yemeni population do not have access to clean water and sanitation. It remains the case, too, that the vast majority of Yemenis live on less than £1.29 a day. This situation can only help to feed the ambitions of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula.
All I ask from the Minister—as I said, Ministers have continued the good work of Ministers under the last Government—is that we continue our strategy and our plan to help the Government of Yemen, and that we give them whatever support they need. We must be cautious about one aspect: when we have international conferences, many countries—the Saudis, for example—pledge a lot of money, but I do not know whether it is actually paid. We must ensure that, having made a pledge, the donors ensure that the money reaches the people who matter—the people of Yemen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I thank the three colleagues who have spoken briefly and succinctly, but equally powerfully, in each set of comments. I am not time limited, but I will do my best to be as brief as possible, fair in responding to what colleagues have said and fair to those who are waiting to speak. I shall deal with colleagues’ contributions in order.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the death penalty in India and some particular cases. One of the advantages of having a deep and wide-ranging bilateral relationship with India is that it allows us to have frank and open conversations about all areas of interest and concern. Where we have concerns about human rights issues, we have made them clear to the Government of India. I know that the death penalty is of particular concern to Members and their constituents, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who has responsibility for matters relating to India, receive a significant amount of correspondence on the subject.
We have made our opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances clear to the Government of India on many occasions, urging them to formalise the now eight-year de facto moratorium with a view to eventual abolition. The decision earlier this year to proceed with the execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana was therefore deeply concerning. We took every opportunity to express that concern to the Government of India, and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about our efforts. According to the note I have here, the issue of the death penalty and particular cases have been raised deliberately on 11 occasions in the past 12 months. We are obviously pleased that a stay of execution for Balwant Singh Rajoana was announced on 28 March so that the President could consider an appeal for clemency.
Much of the correspondence received by my ministerial colleagues refers specifically to that and a number of other cases relating to Sikhs, and to events in the state of Punjab in recent decades. Our principled opposition to the death penalty is of course separate from the specifics of cases in which we must be careful to avoid interference in India’s judicial process, just as we would wish other Governments to respect our own. However, the UK is active in encouraging an improvement in the treatment of minority communities in India. The British high commission in New Delhi has discussed minority community issues with the Indian National Commission for Minorities and with various other state-level authorities, and I assure Members that those discussions will continue.
In addition to such bilateral exchanges, the main forum for discussing concerns such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman is the annual EU-India human rights dialogue, the next round of which will take place soon. It allows a frank exchange of views, and, crucially, it is a two-way process. The matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised today will certainly be raised again in the course of that dialogue.
During the United Nations Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review of India in May, we urged it to maintain its de facto moratorium on the death penalty. We asked about the Indian Government’s response to concern about India’s security legislation, and also noted concern about reports of a significant number of cases of torture by police and security authorities. We recommended that India expedite the ratification of the convention against torture and its optional protocol, and adopt robust domestic legislation to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Olympic games, and asked specifically about accreditation. We do not routinely comment on individual cases, but our policy is clear: accreditation will be refused to any individual who may present a safety or security risk or whose presence at the games or in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and it will be refused if there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a familiar but none the less passionate and heartfelt plea in relation to those who are serving in Afghanistan, repeating concerns that he has raised regularly about what he believes to be their overlong presence there. There is no doubt that when he speaks about the circumstances affecting individual soldiers and what they have experienced, either personally or through what they have observed with others, he speaks movingly and with heartfelt compassion, and no one could deny the force of what he says. He constantly raises the questions “What has it been worth?” and “Is it ever worth it?” It would be wrong for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and not give a positive answer to those questions, or rebut, as gently as I can, some of the hon. Gentleman’s worst fears.
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, I believe that there are genuine signs of progress. We know that there are still difficult days to come, but let me offer an answer to those who feel that absolutely nothing has been achieved. The number of district governors has risen from five in 2008 to 12. Eight of Helmand’s 13 districts, and the municipality of Lashkar Gah, are now either in transition or about to embark on it. That means that their security will be no longer the responsibility of UK or international forces but that of Afghan forces, which are gradually taking more and more responsibility for their own areas. Tranche 3 of the transition will see some 75% of the population of Afghanistan covered by their own forces, which have been trained by the international forces in order to meet the security needs of the people in the future. That will allow the UK and international forces to retreat from their international obligations in 2014, as has long been planned. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we have no sense that we are not going to stick to that timetable, which truly matters for the future security of those in Afghanistan.
Some 145 schools are open, an increase of 79% since 2008. There are 89,000 male students in Helmand province and 29,000 female students. There are women teachers, too. All these things did not happen before, which is why the people of Afghanistan are so concerned that the progress must be maintained. We can ensure that only by sticking to the timetable.
The series of international conferences in the past year or so—Bonn, Chicago, Tokyo, Istanbul—have all been designed to demonstrate that, although combat troops will be leaving in 2014, the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan will continue. Chicago was about how the future security will be guaranteed. Tokyo was about international development support; we are committing to give the same level of support as now until 2017, after which time the situation will be reviewed. All these assurances are absolutely essential for Afghanistan’s people as they take more responsibility for their own future.
That future will have been bought by the sacrifices of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred so movingly. I disagree with his view that it has not been worth it, however. Each individual life lost, and each individual life ruined by wounding or pain, is a tragedy, but it has not been for nothing, and there are plenty of people in Afghanistan who recognise that and know that what they will have in the future will have been dearly bought for them by others. They are determined to make something of that.
No one pretends there will not be difficult days to come, but if we consider the protection of women, and their situation, their human rights and their opportunities for the future, we can see that they are better now than they would have been had international forces not been involved, and had UK forces not made the sacrifices they have made.
Finally, let me turn to the comments on Yemen of my friend, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I would have begun by painting a slightly brighter picture. The security situation is not easy, but since the election of President Hadi there have been positive signs in a number of areas. The national dialogue—the essential political process that needs to go forward—is being engaged upon, and the President has been adept in handling the armed forces, who have sometimes been at odds with authority and each other.
Although the security situation is difficult, there are positive signs on where Yemen is going, and the degree of confidence displayed in President Hadi, not least by the Friends of Yemen, has been striking. I would therefore maintain that things are better than they were—and the right hon. Gentleman would certainly find that the ambassador would say that, too.
Let me briefly run through the major areas the right hon. Gentleman discussed. A clear priority for the President has been removing the malign threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and re-establishing security throughout the country. In his inauguration speech, the President was clear about his determination to address the instability. Since then, we have witnessed great achievements by his security forces in the south, with the retaking of towns across Abyan province from AQAP, but those successes have not come without sacrifices, including those resulting from the appalling attack in Sana’a on 21 May, the assassination of the southern military commander on 18 June, and, only last week, an attack on young police cadets at the police academy in Sana’a.
AQAP is on the back foot, but it retains the capability to conduct attacks both inside and outside Yemen. Restoring security and tackling the threat of violent extremism emanating from Yemen is a top priority for this Government, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are committed to the stability of Yemen. That commitment is undiminished, and we will continue to work with the Yemeni Government in their fight against AQAP.
I am aware of the issues to do with the scanning equipment at Sana’a airport. It is in place, but because of the security situation it has not been easy to get the people there to connect it and fix it up. That is a priority for us, however. As the situation eases, it will be an important thing for us to do.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to my colleague, the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan), who is doing an excellent job, such as in addressing humanitarian issues and in respect of the Friends of Yemen donor conference to come. He takes a particular interest in how the money is spent, and in reassuring those who have promised to be donors that the money will get where it needs to go. That addresses one reason why in the past donors have been hesitant to deliver on their commitments. So, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of importance for us that we will continue to deliver on. We think there will be further meetings in New York later on in the summer, and possibly one in Riyadh. However, the Friends of Yemen have recognised the President’s abilities. He was not particularly well known before he took the position, but he is delivering in many different ways in Yemen. Although the security situation is difficult and will remain so, there are some good signs in a difficult area, and I hope to be able to report on those more often in the next 12 to 18 months.
department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, on a subject—the British dairy industry—hugely important to my constituency and, I contend, to our nation. I want to speak in particular about the crisis currently engulfing it.
I have always appreciated the importance of dairying. My first job, for the first 10 years after I joined the family business, was milking cows. I do not suppose I am unique among Members in that regard, although I might be the only existing MP who has actually milked cows by hand. I often stayed with my grandparents when I was young; they had eight cows which they milked by hand, and they produced butter that was circulated in the village. Therefore, I feel a considerable attachment to the industry—and we really did use three-legged stools, for those who are wondering.
Dairy farming has shaped and maintained the countryside of Britain as we know it for a century. It is an industry we should value and support. Today, dairy farming is in deep trouble—an important primary production industry torn apart by the corporate greed and ruthlessness of processors and retailers. Dairy farming is being reduced to an unsustainable position. Dairy farmers will be forced out of business and inevitably, more dairy products will be imported unless there is change. We should do our utmost to prevent this from happening.
It is not possible to calculate precisely the cost of milk production because circumstances vary, but it is generally accepted to be 29p to 31p per litre. Some of our major retailers acknowledge this. Waitrose and Marks and Spencer contract with farmers and allow for the production costs to be covered. Sainsbury’s and Tesco, too, contract with farmers for some of their milk, and they too allow the costs to be covered. However, others do not and they should be named and publicly shamed: Asda, Morrisons, and Co-op are huge businesses that show a shocking disregard for their suppliers. The processors—the in-between businesses that buy from farmers and sell to the retailers—should also be named and shamed: Arla, Robert Wiseman and Dairy Crest are happy to watch suppliers go out of business, in order that they can maintain their large profits.
The dairy products marketplace, as we know, is deregulated and unbalanced. The contracts under which milk is traded are incredibly one-sided. Buyers have discretion to impose price cuts almost without warning, while sellers are tied to long-term notice periods.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what is a vital issue to the dairy industry. I recently met Roberta Parsons of Manor House farm in Brogden, in my constituency, which is a small farm with only 140 cows. Does he agree that it is the smallest farmers who are hardest hit by the reduction in milk prices and the abuse of power by the larger milk companies?
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is undoubtedly true that it is the average-sized businesses that are likely to survive and that can carry a period of loss, while the traditional farmers are likely to go out of business unless there is change.
A few weeks ago, the processors reduced the price by 2p a litre—just like that: a 6% to 7% reduction. Now they have told farmers that on 1 August there will be another 6% or 7% cut, which reduces the price they are paying to the farmers to way below the cost of production. Last week, unsurprisingly, there was a huge reaction: 2,500 dairy farmers came to a dairy summit here in Westminster and many of my hon. Friends attended. The purpose was to highlight this unacceptable position, and to demand that these cuts do not go ahead in August and that those that took place in July and July be reversed.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which is dear to both our hearts. Does he agree that this crisis enveloping the dairy industry, whereby on 1 August dairy farmers will face going bust, means that if we cannot find a voluntary code between the producers and the supermarkets, we should look to impose some sort of mandatory regulatory regime to save our dairy industry?
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he makes a point that I was intending to deal with. I was going to raise it with the Minister to seek his opinion and perhaps his assurance on that very matter.
Processors in this deregulated, unbalanced market are behaving as though they are a cartel; they are imposing across-the-board cuts and there seems to be some agreement between them. That is outrageous behaviour. We know that across the world dairying is a volatile market—prices fluctuate. We all understand that; it is why there must be some order, which is why we have contracts. However, the current order is for the processors and the retailers, with catastrophic chaos for the producers. I shall now deal with the point that my hon. Friend raised. We need a code, preferably a voluntary one, and more balanced contracts. We had hoped that there would have been an announcement of a voluntary code already, and I know that the Minister had, too. Unless we can have an agreement on a voluntary code, the Government and the Minister have to consider going forward with a statutory code. Only with that hanging over people’s heads are we likely to achieve the voluntary code we want.
In the longer term, the Government need to encourage progress on lots of other issues. We need to encourage farmers to come together to form producer organisations. The big problem we have with individual farm businesses and micro-businesses is that they are incredibly small and do not carry any power. We know that there is now an agreement from the European Union in the dairy package that we can encourage up to 30% of farm producers to deliver producer organisations. I am hoping that the Minister will reassure us that he wants to do that.
We also need to move forward on the grocery adjudicator, although that might well have a limited impact on this particular problem, as for markets to operate we have to have a degree of fairness. When there is bullying and unfairness, the Government have to deal with it. That is why we have a Competition Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and other such organisations. The Government have to step in when the market is not working, and all of us know that this market is currently simply not working. It is working in favour of big bullying retailers and processors, and it is causing huge damage and driving into bankruptcy the dairy farmers that have sustained our countryside for so long.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) in his request to the Minister today. The hon. Gentleman represents mid Wales and I represent north Wales, and a number of my constituents from the National Farmers Union and from the Farmers Union of Wales have echoed very much the concerns that he has raised. They simply cannot plan their businesses on the basis of a 2p cut in the price of milk already, with the potential for further cuts before 1 August. As he has mentioned, dairies such as Robert Wiseman Dairies are squeezing the dairy farmers of north Wales hard on the price of milk. A number of farmers in my constituency have raised the concern that they have potentially lost, because of the cut to their businesses, between £40,000 and £60,000 per business. No business could take a mid-year hit of that proportion with so little notice without it potentially having an impact on their viability. Farmers in my constituency came to London last week to raise the issue and are seeking the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and agree with much of his speech. Does he share my concern that the contracts that dairy farmers have to put up with mean that they have to live with cuts of 2p, then another 2p, then further erosion, but if they want to get out of them they have to give six months’ notice? Does he not agree that that is unacceptable?
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and the key is to have a code of conduct for the contracts. I know that the Minister had discussions last week about a potential voluntary code and look forward to his updating the House today on his progress. If a definitive decision has not yet been made, I would welcome hearing from the Minister what plans he has to ensure that during the period between now and when the House returns in September he will be able to update Members who have an interest in the dairy industry, as well as Members in general, on this matter. I share the wish of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to see a voluntary code at first, but I know that my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench would certainly support regulation through a statutory version of that code if the voluntary form was not successful.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. Was it not a previous Conservative Government who did away with the milk marketing boards? The whole question of their being able to maintain prices meant that the farmers could maintain their businesses.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend and I have both been in the House since 1992 and I vividly remember the Milk Marque being abolished in the early 1990s, which led to a free-for-all that caused some difficulties. Let us put those issues to one side, however, as I am concerned about how we can make progress today.
The Minister has an opportunity to explain to the House how he is progressing on the voluntary code. If a voluntary code does not succeed, he will certainly have my support and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I think, for a statutory code in due course. The key issue, however, is how to ensure that those who produce get a fair price for their produce. At the moment, the big businesses mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in his opening remarks, such as Robert Wiseman, can squeeze my constituents to the extent that they cannot make a living out of the production of milk.
Much of the milk produced in my constituency does not go to retail in supermarkets; it goes into the production of butter, yoghurts, cheese and other produce. The code needs to encompass not just supermarkets but all outlets for milk.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman feel the same concern as many of us about the large investments that farmers have had to make because of the new regulations on slurry and its disposal? That investment, on top of a worse price for milk, makes it more difficult for them to survive.
Mr Hanson
The key point is that whatever challenges farmers face in their investment and their businesses, no business can take the type of change that has been imposed now with a 2p cut some months ago followed by a further 2p cut by August. That is being imposed by businesses that are choosing to do so to enable supermarkets to have loss leaders. Customers can have cheaper milk, which must be welcomed in some ways, but ultimately we need a fair deal for all. We need a fair deal for producers, for supermarkets and for those people who buy and transport milk and make it into other products. At the moment, that is not happening because, as the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said, the inflexibility of contracts means that farmers cannot get out of them.
We need an update from the Minister on the review of the contracts and an examination of how we can ensure long-term stability for milk production. We need the voluntary examination of contracting and, if that fails, we need the Government to take regulatory action to ensure that the interests of all parties in this important industry, not just in my area of north Wales but throughout the United Kingdom, are defended.
Finally, will the Minister update us on his discussions with my colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales? They have a devolved responsibility for some aspects of dairy production but contracting legislation must be dealt with on a UK-wide basis to ensure that markets are not further distorted between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I support what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wants to see, which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) will no doubt comment on in a moment.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I, too, value the opportunity to bring the issue before the House. I attended the meeting of 3,500 farmers in the Methodist central hall. They were very angry and unhappy. The Minister handled the situation well, but it was a real demonstration of our dairy farmers’ frustration about their treatment.
At a time when British agriculture is doing relatively well, milk prices have fallen dramatically. A year ago, the average price of milk was about 35p a litre; now, it is less than 25p a litre and, as we have been told, the cost of milk production for the average farmer is about 30p a litre. When people have to sell below the cost of production, we will undoubtedly see farmers leave the industry.
In September 2002, there were 3,100 dairy farmers in Wales, but by May 2012 the number had fallen to 1,900. Across the whole of my constituency, there are fewer than 10 milk producers, which is a huge fall in numbers. There has been a downward trend in the production of milk. In 2003, 14.5 billion litres of milk were produced, but today the figure is around 13.5 billion. If those trends continue, the implications are bad not only for farmers but also for consumers. In the medium and long term, they are bad news for retailers and processors.
What can be done to avert a crisis? There is no single bullet, but we need action at every stage of the supply chain, from farmers, processors, retailers, consumers and the Government. As has been said, farmers need to work together. The voice of one farmer carries little weight in the marketplace, but when they join together, their negotiating power is much stronger.
Processors and retailers need to start paying a fair price for milk. Robert Wiseman Dairies, Arla Foods and Dairy Crest must scrap the scandalous price cuts they have imposed on farmers.
Consumers can reward retailers that are doing the right thing. Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have a price formula based on cost. I commend them for that. Consumers should show their appreciation by voting with their feet, and indeed their purses, and punish the Co-op, Asda and Morrisons, which do not have a similar scheme.
We need to start adding value to liquid milk. Our European friends are far better than we are at increasing profits from milk by processing it into cheese, yogurt and the like, which means it can be exported around the world.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my County Durham constituency, many milk producers are suffering. I also agree that milk producers need to sell to wider markets, but does he agree that is no excuse for the behaviour of the wholesalers and the supermarkets?
Roger Williams
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. People who are powerful in the marketplace, such as the processors, use their muscle to bear down on the prices paid to producers, who are suffering.
Finally, I turn to the Government. At the summit, the Minister said that a voluntary code between farmers and processors was close to agreement. Will he update the House on the latest progress?
I commend the Government on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which is making its way through the other place. Let us ensure that the legislation passes quickly, with the teeth it needs to do its job.
I welcome the work the Minister has already done on lightening the load of regulation on British farmers, but more can be done. I know he will continue to implement recommendations from the Macdonald report as and when he can.
The dairy industry is in crisis, but the crisis can be averted. Let us work together, so that our dairy industry will have a brighter future.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I should like to raise the subject of dangerous dogs, as I was unable to participate in the recent Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Although I have publicly supported changing the dangerous dogs legislation for some time, and support the Government’s proposals, the issue took on personal significance for me in May. My mother, Ann, had her finger bitten by a dog while she was delivering local election leaflets in Colne. She was initially treated in Burnley general hospital and then transferred to a specialist unit in Wythenshawe hospital. I put on record my thanks, and my mother’s, to the doctors and nurses who treated her, and to the volunteers from Age UK who made her time in Burnley general more comfortable.
The dog bit my mother’s finger so hard that it broke the bone, and it also bit off the nail and the end of the finger. She was kept in hospital for several days. It is worth noting that my mother is not alone: two local Liberal Democrat councillors in Pendle were also bitten in separate incidents in the same week. I have on a number of occasions been critical of the law relating to dangerous dogs, which fails to protect the public; indeed, in February, I wrote an article in the local press calling for changes to it.
Justin Tomlinson
(North Swindon) (Con): This is a very important subject. Does my hon. Friend agree with my wife, who has studied animal behaviour, that the actions of a dog are almost always linked to the way the owner brings them up and handles them, and from where they purchase the dog?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that he is acutely aware of the subject, given the recent high-profile case in his constituency, in which a two-year-old was attacked by a dog.
Something must be done to protect postal workers, volunteers and the public from dangerous dogs, and to remind owners of their responsibilities. As we are all aware, postal workers are especially at risk; there are an estimated 6,000 dog attacks on them every year. Of course, the issue of irresponsible dog owners goes wider than that. Dog fouling, status dogs and noise nuisances are all raised with me and other hon. Members time and again. The local press regularly cover horrific incidents. Last October, I read about a Staffordshire bull terrier attacking a 10-year-old in Pendle after the dog had been given lager to drink. Of course, because of the way the current law works, no one was punished. Under the Government’s proposals, that would change, and I especially welcome the proposal to provide funds to train expert dog legislation officers in each force.
There is widespread agreement that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history. It is probably the best example of how knee-jerk reactions from politicians can sometimes make a bad situation worse. A key respect in which the legislation got it wrong was in focusing on breeds of dog, when the real problem, as my hon. Friend says, was and is irresponsible dog owners. However, surely one of the other biggest mistakes was that the law did not cover attacks that happen on private property. That is one of the most important issues for the Government to address, and the one that would have the biggest impact.
To be clear, owning a dog is a great thing to do, and the vast majority of dog owners in Pendle and around the country are considerate and take responsibility for making sure that their dogs are safe. I congratulate the Government on engaging with the many groups that have come together to sort out the laws on dog ownership, many of which, including the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, e-mailed me before today’s debate. By getting the legislation right, we can make communities safer and more pleasant to live in, and protect the reputation of those dog owners who make sure that their pets are safe to the public.
Thankfully, my mother is doing well, although the damage to her finger is permanent. She passes on her thanks to those colleagues of mine who have wished her well, but what she would value most is us at last introducing a law on dangerous dogs that works and protects the public.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I return to an issue that colleagues raised a little earlier: the dairy sector, its critical importance to the economy, and the crisis that it faces. Last week, there was a gathering of 2,500 milk producers in central London; 300 of them were Welsh dairy farmers. There is understandably enormous strength of feeling on the part of the farming industry, following the latest round of cuts. We have heard from other hon. Members, and it is not an overstatement to say that the price cuts threaten the very future of many of the family farms that we represent, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom as a whole. Indeed, the shortfall from that round of cuts will cost the Welsh dairy industry alone an estimated £80 million per annum—a huge sum of money that will put many dairy farmers out of business. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) discussed the hit that businesses would suffer—£40,000, £50,000, or £60,000—and that would drive many struggling family farms out of business.
Although the price cuts have been set by milk processing companies, there are things that Government can do to assist our dairy farmers. The Government have commendably introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which is going through the other place, and I share the farming industry’s eagerness to put that law in place as quickly as possible. I am relieved that, after so long, legislation is coming our way, as it will restore some confidence in the industry and enable consumers to make real choices between the practices of different supermarkets, allowing them to choose which ones they shop from. It will provide, I hope, an adjudicator with real teeth, but it will not guarantee farm incomes.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Asda has said today that it will put its prices up by 3p for direct sales for farmers, but in 2010, it dropped the price of milk for four pints from £1.50 to £1. Does my hon. Friend agree that that brought about the drop in milk prices across the piece?
Mr Williams
My hon. Friend graphically illustrates the inconsistent role of some supermarkets. Along with the groceries code adjudicator, we need to look at how we can bring about fair contracts, to which everyone who has spoken has alluded, to stop the exploitation—an emotive word, yes, but that is the perception on the farms that I represent, as well as that of the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales. The contracts that farmers are required to enter are simply unfair, as they are required to give 12 months’ notice or more to pull out of them whereas, as we have heard, processors can change the price they pay for milk at a few days’ notice, or quite literally overnight.
The Government are right to move towards a voluntary code. Like other Members, I look forward to an update from the Minister but I hope that if necessary, the Government will proceed with regulation. As Lord Plumb said in another place, rule books without referees generally have limitations. We all agree in the House that farmers deserve to receive the production cost for their milk, but Robert Wiseman Dairies has announced that from 1 August it will pay 24.73p per litre for milk. Arla Foods milk price will fall to 25p a litre, and the First Milk price to 24.35p a litre—5p less than the cost of production. Any situation in which farmers have to accept less than the cost of production is unsustainable. I commend Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, and Marks and Spencer on the positive work that they have undertaken, but we need to ensure that those agreements are made across the board, from retailers to processors, with all major buyers of milk and dairy products agreeing to commit to a sustainable purchasing strategy.
Helen Goodman
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a problem with milk imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards and costs, and that those imports are not labelled in the UK?
Mr Williams
The hon. Lady served in the previous Parliament when, to be fair, the issue of labelling rose to prominence. It is critical, because it enables consumers to make informed decisions.
Given the feelings in the farming community about the recent price cuts, compounded by difficult weather conditions and rising input costs on-farm, the Government need to make it clear to processors and supermarkets that their failure to deliver fair prices may lead to severe disruption to the supply chain with dire implications not just to farmers but ultimately to us as consumers.
It is always worth remembering that the losses in the dairy sector will have a huge—I do not use that word lightly—impact on the broader rural economy. Welsh Assembly Government statistics indicate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said, the number of dairy farms has reduced by 800 over the five years from 2006 to 2011. The number of dairy farmers in Wales alone halved in the past 13 years. This figure will rise if we do not take action over the current price slash and unfair contractual obligations, because they will mean many job losses across the industry among suppliers.
Next week the Welsh farming community, in its widest sense, will gather for the Royal Welsh show in Builth Wells in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). We will see there the breadth of the farming community. The supermarkets, the farming unions and the Young Farmers will be there, as will the machinery contractors, the feedstuff merchants and the farming families from Wales and beyond. I make this prediction: whatever the weather, the sheer number of people there will illustrate how important the industry is to rural Wales. The stakes are high.
It is election time in Ceredigion, when we have hustings with the farming unions—the FUW and the NFU. Before elections, I am always asked this question: “Would you encourage a young farmer, the son of a farming family, to go into the industry and continue with the family farm to earn a living and contribute to the broader rural community?” With hand on heart, if things do not improve and we do not have action, I would hesitate about whether I could say yes to that question.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I was expecting at least one further subject to be brought up during the debate. [Interruption.] That, like many other wonderful speeches, will be consigned to the filing cabinet of those never to be delivered in this Chamber.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I devote most of my response to dairying, which was the subject of most Members’ speeches. First, though, I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). I am very sorry to hear about the dog attack on his mother. I am pleased to hear that she is recovering, even if she will bear the scars for the rest of her life. He was absolutely right to refer not only to the measures that we have announced but to the importance of dealing with dog owners. As he said, often the problems with dogs are in fact a problem with the owner, either because they do not understand how to control the dog or have the desire to use it as a form of weapon for intimidation or worse. That is why the Home Office proposals on antisocial behaviour will include measures on the use of a dog as a weapon, which will rightly be seen as an antisocial activity and dealt with in that way.
My hon. Friend referred to the measures that I announced on 23 April. The consultation that stemmed from that closed on 15 June. We have begun to analyse the responses and will announce our conclusions as soon as we can. To recap, the most important element was to extend the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property, which addresses his point about postmen and the many other people who have a legitimate right to come on to one’s property. We are consulting on the compulsory microchipping of dogs—in particular, precisely on how early to do that and whether it should be at the puppy stage. We are increasing the fee for placing a dog on the index of exempted dogs. We are removing the need to seize and kennel all dogs where court proceedings are pending. We are also, as my hon. Friend said, making a grant to the Association of Chief Police Officers for the training of dog legislation officers. I hope that he agrees that we are endeavouring to address an issue that is long overdue.
Dairying and the crisis in the British dairy sector were referred to by at least four Members in their speeches and by others in interventions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), I had milk cows earlier in my life. I fully recognise the huge crisis that is affecting many people in the sector. As a number of Members have said, some supermarkets that have aligned groups of producers have not cut their prices. However, the processors for many producers cut their prices in May or June and have announced further cuts for 1 August. The cut will total some 3.5p to 4p per litre over the two periods. We now seem to have an industry of haves and have-nots—those who have a supermarket deal and those who do not.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, there has been some good news today. Asda has announced that it will increase the premium that it pays its processor, Arla Foods, by 2p a litre, thereby nullifying the cut that Arla has announced. In other words, the producers affected will not face a cut on 1 August. From memory, that is about 227 producers. Dairy Crest has announced today that, in future, it will require only three months’ notice when producers leave their contracts, and it has guaranteed that it will give four weeks’ notice of any price cut.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have been listening to the debate and, although I do not know much about this subject, it seems to me that we should somehow ensure that price cuts are not passed on to the dairy farmer. The big supermarkets should take whatever they wish, but they should not pass it on to the milk farmers.
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend’s point is properly made and is an important one.
I will concentrate on the issues that need to be addressed. I fully recognise that what matters to the dairy farmer is the price that they are paid. However, as several hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, it is not simply a matter of reversing the price cuts, although that is what the producers want. We need something more substantial and more permanent than that.
As I say frequently outside this place, we have an obsession in this country with the liquid market and with the desire of our processors to gain bottling contracts for supermarkets. They keep undercutting each other to keep their bottling plants at full capacity. When, as has happened on this occasion, cream prices collapse and they face major problems, the only way in which they can recoup any income is by cutting the price for their producers to below the cost of production. That is a direct consequence of the obsession with bottling for supermarkets.
As several hon. Members have said, and as is abundantly clear, there are ample other opportunities for investment. Some 20% of our total dairy consumption is imported. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about imports. We do not import liquid milk. All the imports are dairy products, but they nevertheless make up a significant part of our total consumption.
What are our processors doing to combat that? One or two are trying to do something. Dairy Crest has gained back some of the cheese market with one of its products and it should be congratulated on that, but there is still much to do. Where do the supermarkets with aligned dairy groups, which pay a premium for their liquid milk, get their own-label brands? Where are their other dairy products, such as their yoghurt, produced? Do they use British milk? In many cases, they do not. There is therefore a great opportunity for import substitution.
There is an even greater opportunity for exports. The world is crying out for increased dairy products. Yes, global prices have fallen back and that is part of the immediate problem that we face. However, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) that if I was asked whether I would encourage a young person to go into dairy farming, my unequivocal answer would be yes, because I am convinced that there is a long-term future beyond today’s crisis.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Paice
No, I am sorry, I need to press on.
Hon. Members also raised the issue of supermarket power. As has been said, we are introducing the groceries code adjudicator. I have always tried to be honest with farmers and say that on its own it will not increase the price of milk, but that it should increase fairness and transparency.
The big problem that we face, which has been mentioned this afternoon, is what I view as the absurd level of price cutting by some retailers, particularly those in what is known as the middle ground. One retailer is openly selling milk at 99p for four pints.
Mr Paice
It is on the record, and I did not move my lips.
The reality is that such a price is completely unsustainable. Such retailers need to understand that if they go on like that, there will be no milk. There is a limit to cost cutting. Maybe some producers can cut their costs, but not to that level. It is completely impossible. There is no country in the world that can sell bottled milk at the equivalent of 25p a pint by the time it has been through the whole processing chain. That is absurd, and such retailers are biting off their nose to spite their face.
The final issue that several hon. Members raised was the lack of producer power and the need to promote producer organisations. That brings me to the dairy package and the voluntary code. I am grateful to Members of all parties for the support that they have expressed this afternoon for my work in trying to get a voluntary code. I genuinely believe that that offers a far better prospect than legislation, and I shall explain why.
A voluntary code can, if agreed by both sides—the processors and the producers—cover such issues as price, notice periods, contract lengths, volume and exclusivity. A raft of other points could be included if both sides wanted them to be. Conversely, the dairy package and the legislation that would be permissible under it are about a contract, not a code. We could legislate to make contracts compulsory, but the permitted legislation would limit greatly what could be put into those contracts.
For example, as we understand it, no notice period would be permitted. A length of contract would be specified, and it would probably be a year or more. The idea of a short notice period to get out of a contract would not exist. That is just one of many examples showing that the regulatory route, which I fully accept appeals to some people, is not as good as a code, which could accommodate a range of measures.
I agree with farmers and others who said last week that we cannot go on like this, because the discussions on a code have now taken 14 months and we cannot continue simply hoping it will happen. I had a meeting with both sides last week before the public meeting to which reference has been made. We got very close to an agreement, but both sides still had what I considered to be very minor issues to resolve. Those issues were obviously important to them, and they were not resolved. There have been further, private discussions with my officials and others over the past few days, and I intend to precipitate a final decision. I do not want to give the House more information than I have given the industry, because that would not be right, but I intend to say that enough is enough, that the negotiations have been going on long enough and that it is time for both sides of the industry to show some maturity and demonstrate that they can agree a voluntary code of practice.
I would be foolish to pretend that it is a certainty that we will get a code. There are still some stumbling blocks on both sides, coming both from those representing producers and from at least one major processor. However, I have every intention of driving the process forward and getting a result. We have got to the point at which knowing it was not going to happen would be better than living in the never-never land that we have been in for some time. However, I emphasise that I do not believe that the regulatory approach recommended by some hon. Members would give either side of the industry anything like the beneficial future that is there for the taking.
I hope I have answered the points raised by hon. Members in the debate. I entirely share their concerns. I can assure the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we are in discussions with colleagues in the devolved Administrations. We are getting together prior to the Royal Welsh show this weekend. We were going to discuss the common agricultural policy, but we will also discuss the situation in the dairy sector. I can only hope that, before the cuts take place on 1 August, we can get a voluntary code at least. I hope others agree that that is the best way forward.
General Matters
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We now come to the debate on general matters. I will start off with a six-minute limit on speeches, but if there are too many interventions, I will have to drop the time. I am trying to get everybody six minutes. I am sure it will be a good debate as we go into recess.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
There is a strong and growing sense of anger in Salford and across Greater Manchester about the Government’s decision to axe the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. A strong campaign in the Manchester Evening News is asking the Government to rethink their plans.
The 2nd Battalion has a long and distinguished service history dating back to the Lancashire Fusiliers. Nineteen heroes from the Lancashire Fusiliers, which became the 2nd Battalion, were awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery. The battalion has served this country in every major conflict since 1674. Many of its soldiers gave their lives fighting for this country.
In 2009, the 2nd Battalion of Fusiliers completed a tour of Afghanistan in which it lost seven men killed in action. Others were wounded, some very seriously. Three of the seven died together in an explosion while on patrol near Sangin in Helmand province on 16 August 2009, including Fusilier Simon Annis from Salford. Simon and fellow Fusilier Louis Carter were trying to drag their injured comrade, Lance Corporal James Fullarton, to safety after a roadside bomb blast, but as the pair lifted Lance Corporal Fullarton on to a stretcher, they triggered a second device, causing an explosion that killed all three soldiers, who died at the scene. Simon was on his first operational tour. He was described by a senior Army officer as a “shining example” to the nation. Simon Annis had been married for just a month before he deployed to Afghanistan.
When the 2nd Battalion had its homecoming parade from Afghanistan later in 2009, Salford people lined the streets to give the returning soldiers a warm welcome. I was proud to be at the parade and to meet my constituents, Ann and Peter Annis, the parents of Fusilier Simon Annis. The pride his parents feel is replaced by anger at the Government’s decision to axe the battalion their son served so valiantly. Simon’s mother Ann has said:
“Simon was so proud to serve in the battalion and now this feels like a smack in the face. He died with his mates in that battalion and now it will be gone…Lads are still in Afghanistan and dying out in Afghanistan and the Army are talking about cuts and job losses. Morale must be at rock bottom.”
Bob Stewart
(Beckenham) (Con): My uncle served in the Lancashire Fusiliers and I am very proud of that fact. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be a good idea if the Government could rethink their policy on cuts to infantry battalions—the three in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland—at least until we are out of Afghanistan?
Barbara Keeley
I very much agree with hon. Gentleman. I am today asking for such a rethink.
The decision to axe the battalion feels like a betrayal to the memory of Simon Annis and the other soldiers who have given their lives. I agree with Mrs Annis that the decision is bad for morale—it must be. There is a deep attachment in Salford and across Greater Manchester to this battalion, the Lancashire Fusiliers, which has such a long and proud history of service to this country, as I have mentioned. The 2nd Battalion is linked to Salford and other places in Greater Manchester. At this difficult time for employment, its loss will significantly reduce the opportunities for local people who want to enter a career serving their country. Furthermore, the decision will put 600 soldiers and officers at risk of being made redundant.
Brigadier David Paterson, the honorary colonel of the 2nd Battalion, wrote in a letter to General Sir Peter Wall that the decision would not best serve the armed forces. In the letter, he tells of his bitter disappointment at the decision to cut the battalion, which he describes as
“the strongest in raw manning and deployable strength”,
and he writes of the difficulty he will have in telling his fusiliers, in an almost fully staffed battalion, why they are now likely to be posted to battalions that cannot recruit as well as the 2nd battalion, which has 523 trained soldiers out of a maximum strength of 532. He has questioned the criteria being used to single out the unit, which actually has a strong record in recruiting new soldiers and is the only regiment set to grow over the next six months.
The Secretary of State said yesterday that the recruiting ability of regiments over a period of 10 years had been taken into account when deciding these cuts, but it seems wrong, given the different employment situation today and the battalion’s strong record in recruiting, to take what must have been a few leaner years of recruitment as the reason for axing this historic battalion. I urge Ministers to reconsider the decision and instead respect the proud history and valour of the 2nd Battalion, of which I and the people of Salford are so proud.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
A good education is the best start that a child can be given, so I am pleased that the Isle of Wight further education college provides a great education and now has the added benefit of a sixth-form department. Before the current principal, Debbie Lavin, took over, results were poor, but under her leadership it has become a flagship college. I am also confident that Christ the King sixth form, which will open in September, will be of a high standard and give its students a similar excellent start in life. I wish the principal, Pat Goodhead, the chairman of governors, David Lisseter, and all those involved with Christ the King college well in their endeavours.
Unemployment on the Isle of Wight has fallen in recent months, which is welcome news, but the news is not so good for young people. I know that Ministers are working hard to reduce youth unemployment, but one way of doing that is to increase the number of apprenticeships. To that end, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has agreed to visit the island in December to help us boost local apprenticeships.
Mr Donohoe
Apprenticeships are dear to my heart, but not enough is being done. Is the college that the hon. Gentleman mentioned going to increase the number of apprenticeships it provides?
Mr Turner
It is necessary that apprenticeships be expanded at all levels, which is why I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is visiting. I look forward to it.
One positive way of gaining experience while looking for employment is voluntary work, and there are many excellent causes on the island. For example, the Isle of Wight food bank, which has been doing a sterling job since its launch a year ago, has helped more than 2,000 people in dire straits by providing food donated by other islanders. I pay tribute to Hannah King, who runs the food bank, and all her volunteers for the sterling work they do.
Finally, I want to touch on events that brought parts of the island to a standstill for more than 24 hours last month. Many hon. Members will have seen the headlines about the Isle of Wight festival chaos. The festival has been held in its present location since 2002, but owing to atrocious weather and a clear lack of contingency planning, some island roads were gridlocked on 28 and 29 June. The impact on some islanders’ lives was very serious. Vehicles were at a standstill for hours, blocking roads and preventing islanders from getting to work, school, hospital appointments and the ferry terminals, while ferries sat in the Solent for up to five hours, unable to unload cars; there was nowhere for them to go. School children missed important exams, and others walked home when there were no buses. Some families were unable to get to the funerals of relatives, and other funerals were cancelled.
It is not for me to apportion blame, but a bad situation was certainly made much worse by a lack of communication with the island’s media. For example, Michael Coombes and Paul Topping, along with Heather McCallum, Glyn Taylor and Lucy Morgan of Isle of Wight Radio, worked tirelessly to try to keep islanders abreast of events. However, their efforts were largely thwarted, because nobody would tell them what was going on. Thankfully, the situation was finally brought under control on the Friday morning, when alternative car parks were opened. Many islanders showed amazing community spirit, offering food, shelter and other help to stranded festival goers. That included the Vectis 4x4 responders. Without their help, vehicles would have been stuck in the mud bath that was the festival car park for many more hours.
In order to ensure that such problems do not arise again, we need to know what went wrong this year. The organisers, Solo, are not covering themselves in glory. First it was announced that refunds would be given; then Solo said that they would not. I know that VentnorBlog has asked Solo a number of times for a copy of the emergency safety plan, but those requests have been ignored. Solo may not feel accountable to local people or our local media, but without local good will the festival will be harder to stage. I want the festival to continue—so do many others on the island and, of course, off it—but Solo must ensure that local people are able to go about their lives around it. Then we will all benefit again.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I want to use this afternoon’s debate to put down a marker of my concern about the changes in Government policy towards further education and the introduction of further education loans, and also about the possible impact of changes to higher education funding on social mobility. I am particularly concerned that the introduction of further education loans will discourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds from taking up access courses to university or, if they are over 24, from entering FE to undertake level 3 study.
A couple of years ago I visited a school in my constituency which some years previously had had poor attainment levels. Because of the investment by the last Labour Government, it had massively increased its levels of success at GCSE and A-level; hence, for the first time ever, a lot of the young people there were considering going to university. However, I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with a group of young people from the same school who were just not so sure that going to university was a possible way forward for them. That should be a matter of great concern to this House.
Last month I attended, as I do every year, the New College Durham graduation ceremony in my constituency. The students at New College range from 16-year-old school leavers to adults with families who have gone back into education, often after losing their jobs. I congratulated them on doing the right thing—on getting a good education and working hard—and I wished them all the best for the future. However, I am concerned that introducing further education loans may reduce the number of such people in colleges across the country who are getting the education they deserve, gaining the skills for a new career or accessing higher education. In 2010-11, more than 370,000 people aged over 24 were studying at this level, so the change will not affect just a small number. The people in FE want to reskill, but they also want to get promotion or enter employment for the first time. We are risking our economy and our future economic growth by not encouraging that group of people to reskill.
Mr Donohoe
Does my hon. Friend agree that much more emphasis should be placed on apprenticeships, which I mentioned earlier in the debate, by the colleges themselves?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a useful point. We need apprenticeships, but it is important that people—especially those aged over 24—are able to take up those apprenticeships. We also need to support the 16 to 24-year-olds in apprenticeships, as that is yet another route by which they can gain skills and get into the labour market.
Projections predict that, by 2020, 56% of jobs will need to be graduate level jobs in order to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy. It is vital that people from all backgrounds are able to get the necessary education to get those graduate level jobs. The Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Sharp of Guildford has recognised that the introduction of further education loans threatens social mobility, saying that she cannot understand why the Government are pushing forward with loans for level 3 study while they claim to be concerned about social mobility. I ask the Minister to comment on that point today.
In my constituency in Durham, there has been a 355% increase between May 2011 and May 2012 in the number of people who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months. If those people want to get an education, start a new career and get out of the trap of unemployment, we need to ensure that they have access to the necessary education. A survey conducted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has found that the proportion of people surveyed who were willing to take out a loan for further education has dropped dramatically for higher age cohorts. Worryingly, that suggests that the policy could do real damage to the lifelong learning sector and to the ability of people to retrain and reskill in their 40s and 50s, which could block their chances of regaining employment.
The importance of further education can really be seen at the moment, with so many people unemployed right across the country, but even in the good times we need people to be able to gain skills in certain industries to maintain our global competitiveness. In 2006, the Leitch report called for the continued upskilling of Britain’s population, but the Government are failing to implement those proposals.
I also want to consider what is happening in the higher education sector. About 70% of those enrolling in higher education access courses are women. I know from a recent letter from the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning that people who undertake access courses and get into university will have the money that they spend on those courses refunded, but we must also take into account the deterrent effect that having to take out a loan could have on people enrolling in access courses in the first place. I am also worried that the number of applications to universities for courses starting in 2012 has reduced dramatically. That might not follow through to a reduction in the number of students going to university, but we should be worried by the fall in applications.
Finally, I want to make a plea to the Government to keep supporting the widening of access to our universities. We know that they have allocated £140 million this year for widening participation, but it is essential that those funds should be not only maintained but increased so that education can fulfil its role as a route to social mobility.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my near namesake, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). I want to talk about three issues: the general position of policing and criminal activity in London; the excellent work being done by Harrow police; and the scandalous proposal to close the custody suite in Harrow.
On the general position in London, some 300,000 people were arrested last year for alleged crimes, of whom 100,000 were foreign nationals. Of the 100,000 foreign nationals arrested, 86,000 were convicted of a criminal offence. I am one of those who welcomes tourists who come to this country on holiday, spend their money here and enjoy our wonderful heritage. I also welcome those who come here as students and who learn about this country and go back to their own countries enriched by their experience of the United Kingdom. I welcome those who come here to work and pay their taxes, and the families that choose to live here and integrate into society, becoming part of our great British society overall. However, those who come as guests and then commit criminal offences, and who are responsible for a third of London’s crime, are a danger to everyone else who comes here to make this country their home.
That is a key concern. The worst aspect is that, as I understand it, of those 86,000 people convicted of criminal offences, none were deported. Worse still, none were barred from returning to the UK if they chose to leave of their own volition. That, of course, creates community tensions and concerns for all the law-abiding people who have come here either to live here or on a visit. This requires prompt and immediate Government action.
Let me turn to the issues in Harrow. I recently had the pleasure and honour to attend a commendation service for 22 policemen and women who were commended by the borough commander for courage and for work above and beyond the call of duty. These brave individuals do an excellent job in ensuring that Harrow is London’s second safest borough. They cannot be praised highly enough. I believe it is right and proper to pay tribute to all those brave men and women who lay their lives on the line almost daily so that we can go about our business in a carefree manner, as we would all wish.
Finally, the third issue I want to deal with is the scandalous proposal to close the custody suite in Harrow police station. Everyone knows that when people are arrested, they are often violent, they are sometimes intoxicated and they can give the police a very hard time. Such people need to be transported to a custody suite, and processed and looked after in the prison cells, if required, in the most expeditious manner possible. The last thing that is needed is to transport people arrested in Harrow to Wembley or even to Kilburn when they may be violent, intoxicated on drink or drugs and causing many problems for police officers.
Another key concern is that if this proposal were to go ahead, police officers would be dragged away from Harrow to go to Wembley, Kilburn or beyond to process these individuals, and criminal investigation department officers would have to attend at one of those police stations to interview them and make sure that they were safe and secure overnight, if necessary. That, to me, is dragging away police officers who should be patrolling Harrow streets and unnecessarily tying them up in work that they should not need to do. Equally, there is a concern that people who have been arrested and put in police cells need to be inspected by police inspectors on a regular basis to make sure that they are safe and secure, and thus in a position to be interviewed. What is being proposed suggests that there will be an attempt to move the CID officers from Harrow to Wembley or Kilburn in order to facilitate all this investigation work and the necessary work of policing.
I therefore ask responsible Ministers to step in and make sure that this proposal bites the dust very quickly so that we do not see a drag-down of police officers and a drag on police time and resources in Harrow, and so that we do not cease to be London’s second safest borough.
Bob Stewart
Briefly, was this a police decision or a decision by someone else?
Bob Blackman
It is currently a proposal across London to close certain custody suites. I am obviously concentrating on my own constituency, but my hon. Friend should be clear that a similar proposal might well come forward for his own constituency, which will impact on his own borough of Bromley. We have to be careful about this across London.
I am particularly concerned because I know that when people are arrested in Harrow, at certain times of day it can take almost an hour to get to Wembley or Kilburn police station. Members can imagine a scenario involving violent criminals kicking off in the back of a police van that is dragging policemen or policewomen to another station where they will be tied up for several hours. Resources in Harrow will be severely stretched, and I suspect that there will be proposals for other custody suites to be closed throughout London, which I think would be wrong. We need to make it clear that custody suites should be in the most locally appropriate area, so that criminals can be processed in a humane and orderly fashion rather than transported for huge distances, tying up police resources unnecessarily.
I am sure that a Minister will respond to me in writing, but I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take the issue on board as well, so that we can be given an answer. I know that all three Harrow Members are very concerned about this, as are the Harrow public.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate.
The Northern Ireland Executive have designated 2012 the “our time, our place” year, because of the number of significant anniversaries and major events taking place in the Province. Given that we are nearly halfway through 2012, I think it would be useful to take stock of what has happened in Northern Ireland so far this year,
We have had some enormous successes. The Irish open golf championship was the first European tour event ever to sell out completely—in this instance, for all four days of the competition. It was a fantastic occasion, despite the weather, which did its best to dampen spirits. We have also experienced the build-up to the Olympics. I am pleased that Northern Ireland is providing training venues for the Chinese male and female gymnastics teams and the Cuban boxers, among others. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable for those teams to stay in Northern Ireland to train, so that is a sign of the great progress the Province has made.
This year was also the centenary of the sinking of the Titanic, which was marked by the opening of the iconic Titanic Experience building in Belfast, which is already attracting visitors whose number massively exceeds that predicted. The great news is that two thirds of the visitors are “out of state”—an encouraging sign for the sustainability of this major new tourist project. Belfast has again stamped its mark on the Titanic name, which is important given the association of that great ship with the city where it was built.
Her Majesty’s visit to Northern Ireland on 26 and 27 June was an enormous success. A great deal of attention was paid to the famous handshake between the Deputy First Minister and Her Majesty. I for one was delighted that Her Majesty was able to come to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and that the Deputy First Minister was presented to her as part of the jubilee tour. That too is a sign of the enormous progress we have made. Her Majesty has been to Northern Ireland 20 times during her reign, but the fact that on this occasion she was able to proceed through part of Belfast in an open-top vehicle in the presence of 20,000 members of the public shows just how far the Province has come.
Later this year, we shall mark the centenary of the signing of the Ulster covenant on 28 September. Back in 1912, 500,000 people signed the covenant enabling Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom, in opposition to the third Home Rule Bill. It is often forgotten that, two years later, more than 2 million people in Britain signed a similar covenant. We look forward to those events later in the year.
Next year, we shall celebrate Londonderry’s becoming the UK City of Culture, and the world police and fire games will come to Belfast. We have very good things to look forward to as we continue to make progress with the political stability that now exists at Stormont. However, we must also confront challenges and difficulties, one of which is facing up to the events of the past. This Saturday, 21 July, marks the 40th anniversary of the Bloody Friday bombings in Belfast. We have heard a lot this year about the Bloody Sunday 40th anniversary, but it is often forgotten that just a few months later some of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the IRA took place, when 22 bombs were set off in Belfast city centre in an 18-minute period, killing nine people and injuring 130, including 77 women and children. Many of those victims and their families still bear the mental and physical scars to this day. We must never forget to honour the memory of those victims, and, indeed, all the victims in Northern Ireland. Justice demands that those who know about what happened in those events—we know, for instance, that Gerry Adams was commanding officer of the IRA in Belfast at that time—should come forward even now and tell the victims and society at large what they know, in order to provide closure and truth for the victims.
In recent days, the Orangefest took place on and around 12 July. There were many Orange parades throughout the Province. Almost all of them passed off entirely peacefully, but there was orchestrated violence aimed at the police—include gunshots—by republican dissidents in Ardoyne in my constituency. Some people simply do not want peace; they do not want a resolution to any of the problems we face. There have been attacks on Orange halls at Greencastle and Clifton street in my constituency and at Glenavy in County Antrim. The fact is, however, that the people of Northern Ireland want to move forward. They do not want to be held back by this tiny minority of dissidents who are opposed to the peace process and political stability.
Jim Shannon
(Strangford) (DUP): On the violence in north Belfast, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Parades Commission has a job to do, which it has not yet done?
Mr Dodds
Yes, and I will come on to that point soon.
In the months and weeks leading up to this year’s parading season, community representatives, clergy and political leaders did a lot of hard work on the ground on many different topics. There were talks, supported and encouraged by local politicians, on parades and protests involving the North and West Belfast Parades Forum and the Crumlin and Ardoyne Residents Association. The Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Fein and others in north Belfast sat down and worked on investment and regeneration plans, and sought resolution to long-standing issues. By making progress across a range of issues, we can create the environment for the resolution of the most difficult problems. I am determined that that should continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to the recent situation having been made worse by the gross mistakes of the Parades Commission. That was the case.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
This point applies not only to north Belfast, but to my constituency of South Antrim, where, once again, the Parades Commission bungled things—but, thankfully, sense prevailed and the Orangemen and women did their best to ensure a very happy day for all.
Mr Dodds
I am glad there was such a happy outcome in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right to pay tribute to the people on all sides who worked to bring that about.
There has been a notable lack of support, or even understanding, in both communities in Northern Ireland for the Parades Commission’s mad and bad decision to give a boost to a dissident republican mob intent on violence in the Ardoyne area of my constituency. The chairman is now trying to divert blame by passing the buck to others, which only serves to illustrate how out of touch he and his colleagues are.
We will remain committed to working through these problems. They are isolated and small in number, but they cause great difficulties for my constituents on both sides of the community. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Government must recognise that the tremendous progress that has been made in Northern Ireland must not give a veto, or allow dissidents who are against everybody who is for peace and political progress in Northern Ireland to hold the rest of society to ransom.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
As the Minister with responsibility for culture, communications and creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is set to review the future provision of e-books in libraries, now is a very apt time to highlight the options, challenges and opportunities of e-book lending for libraries, and by default for the publishers and the authors, who control the rights to e-books, focusing in particular on how we can make e-book provision widely available in a manner that supports and sustains our excellent community library network and credits the creative industries.
My research has brought to light some interesting statistics. E-book sales in 2011 were up a staggering 366%, making up some 8% of the market and worth £92 million. Physical book sales in the first half of 2011 fell to a 10-year low, and e-book production overtook hardback output for the first time ever. In researching this issue and preparing this speech, I have been very grateful for the feedback from and views of various library campaign groups, experts, publishers, booksellers and professional librarians. I can tell the House that not everybody agreed with my initial thoughts, which I am about to set out, but it is important that we put those on the table as part of this review and try to make some progress.
My view is that, in principle, e-books should be widely available throughout the library network. Currently, 94 local authorities offer some form of e-book provision, but the available stock is at best poor, predominantly because the big six publishers are not willing to release their stock. They will not do so, first, because the private label rights arrangement whereby publishers and authors get 6p every time a physical book is lent out does not apply to e-books. In the business world, authors and publishers need some form of incentive. There is also a worry that the balance between physical sales and library usage would be altered, resulting in fewer physical sales.
At the moment, the balance between paperback and hardback book sales, and library usage, works. It is often more convenient physically to buy a book than to borrow one from a library: for example, some supermarkets that offer books open 24 hours a day, whereas libraries have limited opening times. Some people choose not to use a library because they do not like the idea of a second-hand book that somebody may have spilt their tea and biscuits on. A significant number of people who purchase books do so to display them on their shelves. I do not envisage people being told on visiting someone’s house in the future, “Please browse my hard drive to look at what I have been purchasing.”
It is therefore clear that for publishers to release their e-books, they will have to be paid for, and there are two options. First, a Government—of whichever colour—will have to write a very large cheque, probably considerably bigger than the one they already write for the PLR arrangement, to release those books. Presuming that we do not have a Government of a particular colour who wish to dash to the rescue, I propose a second option that is worth considering: a small charge for e-books. As somebody who inherently does not like paying for things, that does not come easy to me; however, because we are currently not prepared to pay the publishers, the books are simply not being released.
I propose that the money generated from such a charge be ring-fenced and shared between the publishers and authors, and the physical community library, with the money generated for the latter being spent on enhancing provision and service, be that events, book stock—staggeringly, that accounts for only 7% of library expenditure—extending opening hours, outreach work and so on. The publishers, in return for getting financial compensation for their books being borrowed, would be encouraged to release some of their stock for free access. I have met a number of publishers, and they see that as an opportunity to promote upcoming authors and educational books.
I also propose—again, this is controversial—that e-books be borrowed through a physical visit to the library, thus protecting footfall. That seems like madness in a digital world, but my fear is that if we make things too easy—I go back to the point about convenience—why would anybody buy an e-book or visit a library? Local authorities across the country would soon start cutting huge swathes of community libraries, which are very important, particularly for people getting their first opportunity to enjoy reading, such as younger people, and those who cannot afford e-readers.
I also advise the Government to look to provide a uniform e-book service. Lots of local authorities have been signing up to the models currently available—at great expense—from the book stock fund. I fear that a number of authorities, through no fault of their own, will end up investing heavily in a “Betamax” option. Underlining all this, we should keep traditional books: paperbacks and hardbacks should always remain free, because they are the cornerstones of libraries.
If we do nothing and do not convince the publishers to release their stock, library usage will continue to fall as people drift to e-readers and e-book provision in libraries remains insufficient. Local authorities will continue to invest in the wrong forms of technology, and we will miss out on the potential of e-books to attract new generations of readers.
These are just ideas to start the debate, and I am delighted the Minister has agreed to carry out a review. I hope to secure a 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which will provide a great opportunity to discuss some of the points that have been made to me.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who made a very interesting speech, to which I listened intently.
I wish to speak about reform of the civil service. A well-functioning civil service is exceptionally important to the effectiveness of any Government, and we must get it right. I was therefore interested to see the Government’s White Paper on reform of the civil service. Ministers must be able to rely on civil servants and to be able to drive their work forward. I was a civil servant for 16 years, between 1980 and 1997, in the Treasury. Some 10 years later I returned as a Minister, serving briefly in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. So I have experience of fighting on both sides of the barricades, as it were.
I found that some aspects of the culture were unchanged in the 10 years that I was out of Whitehall, with some seemingly unchanged for 400 years. Coriolanus is told by Shakespeare to proceed by the procedure, and I think that the culture of process over delivery is a long-lasting one in Whitehall. For example, in 2006 an official who was working on the forecasting of the number of immigrants who would come from eastern Europe said, “We went through all the right processes. What more could we have done?” That forecast was out 30-fold.
The good news is that we have a professional civil service that is largely free of corruption. I say “largely” because although we were all looking for more exchanges between the public and the private sector, those have sometimes engendered rather unfortunate behaviour. Our civil servants are also, by and large, intelligent and committed. The problems, however, are well rehearsed and some are mentioned in the Government’s White Paper. They include the fact that the civil service has a stronger capacity on policy than on delivery, which has been recognised as a problem in the British civil service since the Fulton report of 1968. In this White Paper, the Government say that only a third of projects are delivered on time and to budget. One point that they do not raise, but it is an issue, is the narrow social base and experience of civil servants, particularly senior officials. That leads to ignorance and naivety in areas of social policy. I noticed when I was a DWP Minister that I sometimes knew far more than my officials.
Other problems include: the lack of specialist expertise in project management, in contracting and commercial work, and in finance and in human resources—those are all key management delivery skills—a culture of irresponsibility; weakness in long-term and strategic thinking; poor oral and communication skills; a focus on managing inwards and upwards, rather than downwards and outwards; and, I am sorry to say, a loss of administrative skills and honesty. For example, when I was a Minister I had my electronic signature put on documents that I had not seen.
Does the Government’s White Paper address those issues? The answer is: up to a point. I notice that it is a document that calls for less bureaucracy, despite having three forewords. The proposal to have stronger management—the measure for pushing out the bottom 10% and boosting up the top 25%—is rather crude. I would have thought that a well-managed organisation would not need to use such crude management techniques. However, the Government note the importance of strengthening capabilities and of shared services, and they want to strengthen ministerial influence over senior appointments. I agree with what they are doing there, but I do not think that they are going far enough.
The approach of “open” policy making is extremely complex. Obviously, Ministers want to be able to source ideas from people other than Whitehall officials, but the neutrality of officials is also very important and we need to hold on to it. The Government are going wrong in cutting too far, there are too many new-fangled financial mechanisms, such as payment by results, which will be more expensive than gilts, and they have not addressed the narrow social base and the experience situation.
The crucial issue is accountability. Three basic types of accountability are possible in an organisation: hierarchical, market or democratic. In Whitehall, the most important of those is the democratic element. That means that Ministers can be responsible for policy and, if they are warned, for delivering failures, but that otherwise officials must be responsible for delivery. I totally support the work that the Public Accounts Committee has been doing in that regard.
The negative needs a proactive solution. The Secretary of State should be able to appoint the permanent secretary from a shortlist that has been put together by the Appointments Commission. I had always thought that that was a good idea, but when I heard Lord O’Donnell, the previous Cabinet Secretary, say on Radio 4 that that was the one thing he did not want to happen, I knew that it was the lever that we must pull.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I want to raise the question of leasehold valuation tribunals. I declare that my parents had to leave their home in the 1950s after leasehold reform. I also declare that I have an interest in a leasehold flat in Worthing, where the landlord is good, the managing agents are good and we are all happy. That is not true of all. There are about 1.8 million leaseholders in this country and the figure will grow. They pay about £3 billion a year in service changes, and that figure will grow, too. Not all landlords create problems, but some do; not all of those landlords are in the private sector. Some are in the public sector and I have come across a case in which a major London council was found to have been overcharging leaseholders enormously.
I have taken up this issue because there was a long-running problem, which is now being resolved, in Oakland court in my constituency. I pay tribute to those on both sides who are helping to resolve it, but until it reached a resolution I described what was happening to people who, in the majority, are frail and elderly people in their 80s and 90s—those who are still alive since the case began—as, in effect, legal torture, to which they were subjected as they tried to get into the leasehold valuation tribunal proceedings. Appeals, delays and applications from the other side blocked them from being heard.
Leasehold valuation tribunals are part of the residential property system that might properly be described as a non-departmental body. They replace the rent panels and I suspect that it falls between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice. They are probably more the responsibility of the former, but I stand to be corrected on that.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to respond to what I am saying today as I would much prefer to get a letter later. My request to him is that if in September it is possible to have a ministerial statement from the appropriate Minister or Ministers, saying that their officials have met together, taken advice from those who staff and sit on the leasehold valuation tribunals and listened to some of the organisations that have considered the issues, as well as stating how the Government assess the situation and intend to approach it in the future, I shall be grateful.
Let me pay tribute to a liberal think-tank, CentreForum. I anticipate that it will bring out a guide to the issues in leasehold valuation tribunals and the reforms that are needed. Although it is not necessarily a true blue think tank, I welcome its proposals and look forward to reading its full report with great interest.
When my constituents, ably led by John Fenwick, to whom I pay tribute, applied to the Bar Council pro bono unit to get representation, they made the point that when the leaseholders applied to challenge invoices for services that were not being provided, they were confronted by demands from solicitors and a barrister to the tribunal
“to decline jurisdiction and…to dismiss the whole of the application as being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, having no prospect of success.”
If it takes two or three goes to get in front of a tribunal and the application costs, say, £350, there is a major problem that needs dealing with.
The tribunals can be very useful for one group of leaseholders who are trying to get a recalcitrant fellow leaseholder to pay up when they are not paying their charges. A very good example appears in an article from 2007 by Liz Hodgkinson in The Daily Telegraph, talking about how they managed to get an order to make one leaseholder pay up thousands of pounds-worth of costs that they had not paid.
My issue is about the inequality of arms that leads to oppressive behaviour by managing agents or freeholders. If leaseholders are faced with a freeholder or managing agent who has associated companies in which they do not declare their interest, we end up with the situations disclosed in leasehold valuation tribunal judgments, whereby each leaseholder may be asked to pay insurance costs of £6,000 or £7,000 when the appropriate cost is about £2,000. There are scandals that need exposing. We need publicity and better adoption of rules and guidance and, if necessary, the law—although I suspect that the registration of managing agents would do far more —so that many vulnerable and elderly people do not suffer.
I am grateful to Martin Boyd of the Charter Quay residents association in Kingston. He points out that neither leasehold valuation tribunals nor the Department for Communities and Local Government
“keep data on the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation in terms of outcomes.”
He notes that FOI disclosures show Ministers and their advisers what is going on.
The DCLG and the Ministry of Justice probably have very few resources. There may be only one or two officials trying to look after those things, so the Minister has to accept the advice that not much is known and not much needs to be done. The Government’s policy, rightly, is for more leasehold flats, with greater enfranchisement for leaseholders to challenge oppressive costs. We need change, and I look to the Government to review whether staffing is appropriate and whether more people can be brought in to advise Ministers so that there is a better outcome.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is a personal friend. We have campaigned together on many things over the years.
I am saddened by the issue I have to raise this afternoon. As a Member with reasonably long service, I have been very disturbed over recent months about the low morale among the people who make this place work. For the information of the House, over the past few days I have talked to chefs, kitchen staff, cleaning staff, visitor assistants, maintenance men and women, Library researchers, Doorkeepers, Committee staff, procedural Clerks, finance and legal workers, human resources staff, drivers, porters, attendants, curatorial staff, Hansard reporters, members of the media and events teams, accommodation staff and so on. I have done my homework, and I have never met a group of people so demoralised by what they have to put up with as employees of Parliament.
We all rely on the staff in this place; we cannot provide a good service to our constituents without their support. This Parliament should be an exemplar of the best kind of employer, but I am afraid we are not the best employer. As I talked to members of staff, they constantly said, “It isn’t what is happening, it’s not knowing what’s happening.” There is poor communication.
I am keen on management and I chair the all-party management group. I know a little about good management. If managers do not keep in touch with their stakeholders—all the people who make this place a success, and make it amenable to good working for Members of Parliament—and if they do not keep communication open and tell people what is happening, staff become disillusioned and unhappy in their role.
Over recent months—perhaps longer—there is every sign that certain people who are influential in the management of this place believe that it is a business. It is a funny old business where people do not know quite when the House will be sitting. In 2007, we sat for 151 days, and in 2008 it was 150 days. In 2009, we sat for 134 days, in 2010—election year—128 days, and in 2011, 149 days. This is a hard-working House, but it works funny hours, because a lot of our job is done out in the constituency, where we look after our constituents and find out the information that we need to be effective parliamentarians. We cannot run this place as though it were a commercial undertaking; indeed, the House voted by a majority for changes in the sitting hours, which will make it even more difficult to run this place.
We speak to members of staff who say, “All of us in this department, after 20 years of service, have been asked to reapply for our jobs”, and to people in catering who say, “We all hear that they will privatise this, and we will all be out of employment.” That is either true or false, but whatever is happening should be communicated to our members of staff, so that they have some assurance.
Helen Goodman
I am appalled and amazed by what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he have any sense of which departments are involved, and how many staff are being treated in this way?
Mr Sheerman
The research is quite difficult, but there are 78 senior managers involved in one way or another in the management of this place, and a range of interesting people are involved. We have in the House a business change manager, a director general of human resources and change, an assistant corporate risk management facilitator, and an implementation manager. We have an awful lot of managers—and I am sure that, according to their lights, they are doing a good job. What I am saying to the House is that we should take the welfare of the people who make this place work very seriously indeed.
There is another really worrying thing, apart from the welfare of the people who work here and have, over the years, put so much into their work. I am not talking about well-paid people, or people who have the most comfortable life in this country, in terms of their pay and conditions. I am also talking about the people in the Palace involved in security, who believe that security is threatened by the lack of morale here. They are trying to do the job with staff cuts, and with a declining number of people involved. I had a hand in improving the education offering in this place. It is so nice to see many more people visiting, and lots of children on educational visits. Interestingly enough, as was pointed out to me when I tried to do my research, the downside—if there is a downside—is that this becomes a busier place to manage, in terms of numbers and security. It cannot be all one way.
The reason I asked to speak in this debate is that there are very grave concerns about security, if some of the voices that I have listened to are right. Is it not about time that the management of this place got better, so that we can communicate with people in all the jobs that I enumerated? We serve our constituents best if we are served well by those people. We now have time to reflect on what we are doing to the people in all these departments, and to communicate and manage better. We Members of Parliament are the ones who will benefit from that change.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Civil liberties are defined as
“the rights guaranteed to citizens or residents of a country or territory as a matter of fundamental law”,
and are often human rights. One of my concerns on the subject is how workable the UK’s system is for many people in this country, or for those who leave this country to get away from things here. Mental capacity is one of the areas of concern; often, if a person wishes to challenge a judgment that says that they are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, they will not find a solicitor who is willing to take an instruction. Also, they will not be able to get papers accepted by the law. I have cited a number of cases, and I am very concerned about the continuing lack of scrutiny of mental capacity law.
My early-day motion 334, which I will not read out, as everyone knows it so well, looks at the issue of court judgments. Obviously, a legal system needs court judgments, but we have a serious problem with delays in getting court judgments. If one cannot get the court judgment, one cannot explain to the appellate court what is wrong with the process.
The Republic of Ireland’s Refugee Act 1996—this is relevant—defines a refugee as
“a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality”.
If people have a well-founded fear of persecution as a result of their political views, they are refugees. There are five or six people in the Republic of Ireland and one person in Namur in Belgium who have left the UK because of the way in which they were going to be treated by the judicial system and what was proposed by the family division. I have cited the case of Toni McLeod. I reported on her child protection conference papers and the fact that there were concerns that she had been involved with the English Defence League. The judgment stated:
“The first concern…related to the mother’s association with the English Defence League.”
The second concern was that
“the mother is someone who reacts adversely to criticism and advice from professionals.”
The third concern was that
“the mother demonstrated a lack of insight into her children’s emotional and social needs”,
partly because she had drawn her child’s attention
“to her campaign against the family justice system and her belief that social workers tell lies.”
We have a serious problem if the system proposes to take a new-born baby from someone because of that person’s political views. That is clearly a form of persecution: it has been done in the past and it is still going on today. There is a second case in Ireland—not in Cavan; oddly enough, four of these cases are in Cavan, which surprised me—in which someone was deemed a threat to his children because he expressed concern about the integrity of the system. Professor Jane Ireland, who undertook research on psychologists’ reports, showed that in the family courts—not the court of protection—of 124 reports, two thirds were either poor or very poor.
That raises concern in relation to the issue of mental capacity. People’s legal existence is removed because a psychologist says that they are too stupid to instruct a solicitor, or do not have the mental capacity to do so. There are many other things that need to be said about that.
I am lucky to have the opportunity to introduce a private Member’s Bill. Second Reading will take place on 26 October, and I shall explain why it is such a good Bill and can fix some of the problems in the system. Everyone knows about the process for such Bills: I need to consult the Government and see to what extent they respond to my concerns. Having discussed the matter quite widely, I hope to publish a draft of the Bill this week. The measure may be significantly different on Second Reading, because the Government may say that under no circumstances will they allow the measure through. There are difficulties, even though the legislature has secured greater independence from the Executive, in getting things through against strong Government opposition. I intend to send the measure to the Opposition, too, as well as other political parties to seek their views on these issues.
It may surprise Members that some parts of the measure are necessary, but it deals, first, with the right to report wrongdoing. The Health Professions Council still refuses to investigate allegations against psychologists —and we must remember that those psychologists can paint people as non-persons and make them into secret prisoners—so we must do something about that. Secondly, we should have academic scrutiny of the proceedings, so that we can check that they have intellectual integrity. At the moment, things operate in a vacuum without being peer reviewed and so on. There is not even a Daubert process.
Thirdly, and importantly, children in care do not have a voice. They are not listened to, and there is no proper remedy for them. When they leave care, they are often subject to discrimination, so I hope to propose in the Bill to improve the situation for children in care and after they have left care. I have only a few more seconds, so I shall not go into much more detail about the Bill, but I hope to publish it later this week. There are serious problems that need to be dealt with, and I hope to have hon. Members’ support in doing something about that on 26 October.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to call on the Government urgently to investigate how a land value tax might be introduced to replace, first, business rates, and then council tax. I call for this because it would be more progressive and fair, it would help to prevent property speculation and it is a potential means of redistributing wealth. I am also encouraged by the fact that land value taxation has long been a key policy of one of the coalition Government partners. I hope that the robust reports on LVT from the likes of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as debates such as this, might help to persuade the other partner.
As hon. Members know, LVT is a tax or levy on the value of land that takes account of any planning permission associated with it but not of any improvements made to the site such as buildings. For domestic property, for example, the house price includes both land and building values, but LVT would apply only to the land that the house stands on. LVT encourages efficient and sustainable use of land, as owners of derelict land or properties that they have deliberately allowed to become run down pay the same as those who take care of their properties. It therefore has the potential to bring more brownfield sites into use and to ease pressure on green belt. Building in towns and cities would become more efficient, urban sprawl could be reduced, and speculative land banking—for example, by big supermarkets—could be discouraged.
Jonathan Lord
The hon. Lady cites all sorts of terrible, egregious cases, but what about the widow who wants to carry on living in the family home but does not have much income or spare capital? Would she force her to move home because of these taxes?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, not least because it gives me the opportunity to reassure him that I certainly would not be asking that widow to leave her home. What I am asking the Government to do—I have drafted a private Member’s Bill to this effect—is to research how we would implement a land value tax. Among the provisions that we would need to consider is how to protect the widow in the case to which he alludes. For example, one could give her the option of continuing to pay council tax until she dies or moves house, and if she moved house one could think about how to introduce the land value taxation at that point. I assure him that I certainly do not envisage a scenario where this measure would force people to leave their homes. It would have to be brought in gradually. I stress that my private Member’s Bill asks the Government to research this and look into the modalities of introducing it, transition periods, and so on.
One of the great advantages of a land value tax is that it would be very hard to dodge, avoid or evade. It would encourage more efficient and sustainable use of land and avoid distorting business behaviour, as our current business rates do. Business rates are levied as a percentage of the estimated rental value of the property, and the effect of that is to skew economic activity away from property-intensive production and to create a perverse incentive not to use or properly develop brownfield land first. Crucially, an LVT could discourage boom and bust in property, giving incentives against disproportionate amounts of capital being tied up in property and unsustainable accumulation of debt.
Support for this idea comes from interesting quarters both historically and today. For example, in February this year, Samuel Brittan said in the Financial Times that
“the case for a land tax is one of the oldest and least disputed propositions in economic thought.”
He went on to explain:
“Many chancellors have said that they would jump at a tax that had no disincentive effects on work or enterprise but had a strong redistributive element.”
Samuel Brittan is in very good company. Winston Churchill, speaking in 1909, put the argument in favour of LVT rather eloquently:
“Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced.”
In addition to that, last year we had the heavyweight report from the IFS that was commissioned from the Nobel prize winner, Sir James Mirlees; it is known as the Mirlees review. It clearly recommends that the Treasury take LVT seriously. It says:
“This is such a powerful idea, and one that has been so comprehensively ignored by governments, that the case for a thorough official effort to design a workable system seems to us to be overwhelming.”
In responding to the questions that I have put to the Government so far on LVT, they have always fallen back on the work done by Sir Michael Lyons in his 2007 inquiry into the role, function and funding of local government. There are many criticisms of the Lyons report and there have been dramatic economic changes since it was released, the most obvious of which is the 2008 crash, which make Lyons’ analysis of land value taxation out of date.
We need a study into the practicalities that looks at how we would bring in an LVT, who would be the winners and losers, and what transitional measures would be needed. The evidence suggests that such a measure would be broadly progressive. In other words, those who can afford it would pay the most and those who can least afford it would pay the least. I hope that the Government will use the response to this debate to reply positively to the broad cross section of people who are saying that this idea has potential. We now need research into how it would be implemented.
The practicalities of land valuation at the necessary level of disaggregation might seem daunting, but that does not mean that it is not possible. There is already a substantial apparatus designed specifically to record land and property values for business rates. Rating lists are compiled by the Valuation Office Agency, which in 2009-10 employed approximately 4,000 staff. New lists are compiled every five years. The infrastructure is therefore already there and could be used.
As I said, I have introduced a private Member’s Bill which, if we are lucky, will be discussed in November. It calls on the Treasury to do a serious piece of work that looks into how land value taxation might replace business rates and, subsequently, council tax, and that takes account of transitional arrangements as necessary. I hope that the Government will take that proposal seriously. The economic case is strong. If we took the wider view to see how such a transition could be made, I think we would find that such a tax would be sensible, efficient, effective and progressive.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes. I hope not to reduce it again, so short interventions are critical when people give way.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I want to make just one point about the transparency of petrol and diesel prices.
The Government have stepped up to the plate in cutting fuel duty. Ministers have done more to cut fuel duty in two years than many Governments have managed. However, fuel duty is still a stealth tax. As the FairFuelUK campaign has pointed out, we are not straight with the public about how much tax they pay. I pay tribute to FairFuelUK, which is one of the most effective campaigning groups in our country.
When I fill up my car, my receipt says, “Fuel: £50. VAT: £10.” That is wrong. If it was accurate, my receipt would say something like, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10.” There should be some mention of how much of that tax is spent on our roads. I want to make three brief points. First, I will explain that it was never meant to be like this. Secondly, I will say what I am proposing. Thirdly, I will say why transparency works.
The history of car taxation is a textbook case of how a tax becomes entrenched. First, it is temporary and is hypothecated for a specific purpose. It is then expanded. Finally, it is folded out into general taxation. That is exactly what happened to fuel duty between 1909 and 1937. In the early 20th century, funding for roads was drawn mainly from local ratepayers. The so-called people’s Budget in 1909, which came from the Liberal party, put a new duty on motor spirit, or petrol, in the days before our European Economic Community membership forced us to introduce VAT. The duty was ring-fenced for a road improvement fund. The explicit promise of Lloyd George in his Budget speech on 29 April 1909 was
“that the funds so raised will not merely be devoted exclusively to the improvement of the roads, but that they will be well and wisely spent for that end.”—[Official Report, 29 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 497.]
By the 1920s, the road fund was repeatedly raided to prop up the Treasury. At the same time, fuel duty was compounded by licence fees, vehicle taxes and so forth. Eventually, from 1937 motoring duty was treated as general taxation. By 1966, just 33% of the revenue was spent on roads, and by 2008, the proportion was just 20%. Over the years, a series of “temporary” increases have been brought in. The fuel duty escalator began, in a sense, with the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Act 1956, back when duty was fluctuating between 5p and 6p a litre, and VAT did not exist. The temporary increase was a mirage. Fuel duty is now 58p a litre, with 20% VAT on top—an increase of more than 1,000%.
I argue that the tax burden should be clear and transparent on every receipt and every fuel bill. There should be also be some indication of how much is being spent on our roads. My receipt would therefore say, “Fuel: £25. Duty: £25. VAT: £10. Amount spent on roads: £7.” My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) made such a proposal for income tax, which the Chancellor welcomed. Let us do the same for petrol and diesel.
Why is that necessary? First, because we should be honest with motorists. The average family in Harlow spend a tenth of their income on fuel, which is more than they spend on the weekly shop. In essence, they face fuel poverty and they have a moral right to know why their bills are so high. Tax transparency would also act as a deterrent to any Government hiking fuel duty without good reason, because people would see the increase on their receipts.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling case on this issue. Does he agree that it is important not only that the ordinary motorist knows that information, but that the road haulage industry knows it? It has been crippled by heavy taxes.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I know that when he goes back to Cleethorpes, his constituents will thank him in the streets for the work that he has done with me to try to cut fuel duty.
Tax transparency would also make it easier to hold the big oil companies to account. The Government say that their actions have a low impact compared with the huge swings in the oil price, and my proposal would give people hard evidence on a weekly basis of whether falls in the price of oil were being passed on to consumers. as recommended by the website with which I am involved, www.petrolpromise.com.
My proposal does what it says on the tin. We need basic transparency about how much fuel duty people pay and where the money goes. That would be more honest, it would be a deterrent against tax rises and it would put pressure on the oil companies to be fair. I hope, if the House is willing, to introduce a private Member’s Bill on the subject later this year. In the meantime, I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the proposal for the autumn statement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I rise to bring to the House’s attention an issue of great importance to my constituency—fishing. We have debated that critical issue on many occasions in the House, and many Members have a particular interest in it. I wish to underline the need the EU Fisheries Ministers to give full consideration to how best to move forward in a positive fashion. We hear much negativity about fishing, but there are also a lot of positives.
I represent the second-largest fishing village in Northern Ireland, Portavogie, a port that has borne the brunt of European legislation. There are days at sea restrictions, quotas on fishing catches and levels of bureaucracy that, to use a colloquialism, would choke a donkey. The number of fishing boats in Portavogie has reduced from a high of 110 to a low of approximately 60 today, and a high proportion of those are 10 metres or under. I can honestly recall being able to walk from one side of Portavogie harbour to the other without getting my feet wet, because there were so many boats in the harbour. It is very different today.
Many people are annoyed by the situation, because there are enough fish to make the fishing industry sustainable. Scientific evidence shows that in the Irish sea, many fish stocks are regenerating. Cod, in particular, are starting to come back there.
In June, EU Fisheries Ministers agreed to a phased discard ban, to be completed by 2018. The industry supports that ban on the wasteful practice of throwing dead fish back into the sea, but we need to know just when the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and his Department will have discussions with the fishing industry on how the rules and regulations will be implemented.
There is a clamour for meaningful regionalisation and for power to be put back into the community. The EU has indicated that it intends to do that through the common fisheries policy, but there is growing concern about the approach agreed by EU Fisheries Ministers, which many feel will not deliver the regionalisation that we all want. Brussels will retain a veto over much of fisheries policy, so the fishing industry seeks reassurance that regionalisation will be meaningful and will help the lives of ordinary people. In particular, it should help the villagers of Portavogie to regenerate the industry and do better.
There has been much talk about the maximum sustainable yield and the long-term management plans. In 2002, the world summit in Johannesburg stated, in loose terminology, that the maximum sustainable yield would be achieved “where possible”. How does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs see that fitting in with regard to the Irish sea? The Irish sea has mixed fisheries. As such, the impact on it will be different from that in other places.
The long-term management plan has built up a backlog in the EU fisheries system. The next case to be reviewed is the cod industry, which is vital for the section of the fishing industry that has experienced most of the changes over the last period of time. There is scientific evidence that the cod are coming back to the Irish sea in numbers, but we need to know exactly what is happening.
Finally, the ongoing dispute between the EU and Norway on the one hand, and Iceland and the Faroes on the other, has dragged on for three years. I understand that a meeting will be held on 3 September, when the EU, Norway and Iceland will discuss the disputes. What is the recent UK input to the EU on the issue? What is our position on the talks? We need reassurance that UK mackerel fishermen, including those from Northern Ireland, will be given an update on this matter.
In conclusion, given the reduction of days at sea, often without due consideration of, or consultation with, the fishing sector, especially when current scientific information shows that the Irish sea is regenerating, and given that the fishing fleet is sustainable, that more jobs can be created, that more opportunity can be given, and that more economic advantage can be gained, I suggest, at this very late stage, that the fishing industry needs help, including from the Government.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The provision of rural broadband and the broadband delivery plan for the two counties I represent—the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire—are of great importance to my constituents. It is good that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is in the Chamber—he has been working in support of our plans in northern Lincolnshire.
This is a massive issue in Brigg and Goole, where we enjoy particularly poor internet speeds. For example, Adlingfleet in my constituency has absolutely no broadband access. Large parts of the constituency suffer speeds to which urban areas had access a decade ago. There is clearly demand for improved broadband access in my constituency, as is evidenced by the demand surveys that my local team and I have delivered—the response rate is between 10% and 15% in a number of wards. That figure continues to grow.
I am concerned about the growing digital divide in this country, with residents in rural areas missing out, which is why I welcome the Government’s broadband pledge and the broadband delivery roll-out. However, I shall talk about the specific plans for North Lincolnshire and the East Riding. My constituents are missing out on developments in health care, such as telehealth services, which will become increasingly important, and on educational opportunities, particularly continuing learning and adult education through distance learning.
Around 25% of East Riding households are likely to be non-users of the internet. The problem is compounded by poor broadband speeds. In North Lincolnshire, 52% of children under the age of 15 are unable to use the same online tools at home as they use at school because of poor access, or because they have no access at home. I visited a school in Pollington, which is in the East Riding part of my constituency because pupils had written to me to ask me to see the poor broadband speeds for myself. The situation was fairly appalling—the children are unable to access basic education websites.
We know the value of increased broadband speeds, so I will not go into them in too great a detail, but I want to speak briefly about the two delivery plans. I shall give an example of the cost savings that can be achieved with good broadband access. The average cost of residential care in North Lincolnshire is £18,000 a year. Telehealth care services can help an individual who wants to live at home retain their independence, and can produce savings of £11,000 a year, but poor access to broadband, which is necessary to support those services, obviously makes that much more difficult in our areas.
In North Lincolnshire, the broadband bid is for £12 million, of which £2.62 million is being provided by Broadband Delivery UK. Both BT and Fujitsu have said that North Lincolnshire is one of their top six priorities out of 40 bids, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has ranked it only 23rd. I would like Ministers—I am happy for them to respond by letter—to look at the ranking that DCMS has given to the North Lincolnshire bid, particularly in the light of the priority that BT and Fujitsu have given to it, and to take into account the developments along the Humber to support the renewable energy and enterprise zones that we have and that will require much better broadband access. I also ask them to consider the funding from the European regional development fund. Our proposal involves using ERDF funding, but there is the concern that the Yorkshire and the Humber ERDF team might not have the capacity to deliver the project on time.
I have two simple requests for the East Riding. We understand that a national contract has been let, but a lot of our broadband and internet access in the East Riding is provided by Kingston Communications. Will Ministers consider whether the unique situation, with KC as the dominant local supplier, will enable the council to go into a separate arrangement outside the national structures and procurement framework with BDUK? I would also appreciate it if Ministers could clarify the exact funding available to the East Riding, because there seems to be some concern about that. Broadly speaking, I welcome what the Government are doing, but I would appreciate it if Ministers could look at these requests.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I wish to draw to the House’s attention the huge problems facing people living in the private rented sector in this country. This has to be seen in the context of the overall problems of housing supply and need in Britain. In 2010, 102,000 new properties were provided in this country, but every year approximately 230,000 new households are created. There are 2.8 million people on the waiting list for council housing in the whole country and 3 million people living in the private rented sector.
I want to talk about the private rented sector because it has been the fastest-growing sector. Even if all the council housing I would like built was built quickly, an enormous number of people would still be living in the private rented sector. Private rents have risen at double the rate of wages over the past 10 years, while people living in the private rented sector are 10 times more likely to move than owner-occupiers. Furthermore, rents are rising fast despite the low level of wage rises at the moment and the relatively low levels of inflation. In other words, it costs more to live in private rented accommodation.
Nationally, the number of people living in private rented accommodation has risen from 9% to 17% over the past 20 years and continues to rise fast. In my own borough, the number of people living in private rented accommodation is more than double the national average—about one third of my constituents live in private rented accommodation. Less than 30% are owner-occupiers, whereas the national figure is about 68%, although that figure is falling somewhat.
The terms of tenancies and conditions for people living in private rented accommodation tell a very sorry story indeed. From the first world war to the 1950s, there was quite rigorous rent control in the private rented sector, and the sector was subsequently built out as slum clearance took place and council housing and owner-occupation developed. We have had a long period with very little council housing being built—although thankfully that is now beginning to change—but Britain also has the most lax system of rent control and tenancy control of any country in Europe. We have a system of assured shorthold tenancies—which give tenants a guaranteed tenancy of only six months and, after that, a two-month notice period—along with very high rents. In my constituency it is quite normal to find people living in private rented accommodation who are paying half their take-home pay—if they are in work—on their rent.
We also have a housing benefit system that militates strongly against people in the private rented sector. The Government have introduced the rent cap, which has limited the levels of housing benefit being paid. I am now facing the trauma—and it is a trauma—of seeing large numbers of tenants in my constituency who were or are in receipt of housing benefit being forced to move out, because their housing benefit has been cut and their rents have gone up, and because they cannot afford to meet the difference from other benefits, if they are on them, or their wages. There is, in effect, a social cleansing of inner London going on because of the imposition of the housing benefit cap. I stress the point that a large number of people in receipt of housing benefit are working—albeit on low wages, but they are in work.
The current situation is an utter disaster, but it does not have to be like this, and I hope that things can change. Germany, for example, has 60% of its housing provided by the private rented sector. Germany has permanent tenancies and rent controls provided, and a tax regime that encourages good rather than bad management. Germany has a much more stable community and society as a result.
I hope that the House will be able to return to this issue. I hope to introduce a private Member’s Bill to bring about regulation, rent controls, decency and, above all, security in good quality homes for those living in private rented accommodation. This is a serious issue that must be faced for a large number of people in this country.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
There are a number of points I want to raise before the House adjourns for the summer recess.
London’s air ambulance service—for which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) recently organised a reception—continues to do an amazing job. It helped a huge number of people in the London bombing, along with more than 2,000 patients last year, using a helicopter and rapid-response cars to deliver emergency medical care. However, the service is in need of a second helicopter, so I support its calls to raise £10 million over the next three years.
Police and crime commissioner elections will be held in November. I would have thought that the last people we need standing are retired police officers, who will presumably have some sort of axe to grind. I would therefore like to know who exactly the PCCs will be accountable to, other than through the ballot box. What will their relationship with Members of Parliament be? These are important issues, particularly as police authorities have proved to be so ineffective.
A constituent, Miss Tina Cannadine, suffers from a range of medical conditions, including myalgic encephalomyelitis, yet she has been refused disability living allowance after an appeal. I have concerns about the assessment system, which has denied Miss Cannadine her entitlements. It is clear that the required forms are too rigid, with no great leeway. They should be designed to help someone such as my constituent, not hinder them.
BBC executives are still paid too much money. Despite a series of fiascos, culminating in the shoddy coverage of the diamond jubilee, the executive team and its stars earn hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. As licence tax payers, we pay their wages and we should be entitled to better services, and if they are not delivered, they should face a pay cut. However, I think that Lord Patten does a fantastic job, and I am still available as a TV presenter.
The Government need to publish a robust liver strategy soon. Liver disease is a huge problem, but it is largely preventable. Urgent action is also needed on hepatitis C. Deaths from liver disease caused by hepatitis C are increasing rapidly, even though it is a preventable and usually curable virus. We can reduce deaths from liver disease by diagnosing and treating people living with this silent killer.
Obstructive sleep apnoea is a little known but serious condition, where throat muscles relax and block the airways—sometimes one has only to look round the Chamber to see what a serious condition it is. I support the calls by the British Lung Foundation to have everyone with symptoms of OSA diagnosed quickly and accurately, and to ensure that they receive the highest standard of care for the treatment of their OSA. That would help to reduce NHS costs and improve patients’ quality of life.
Maldivian students wanting to study in the UK face a challenge owing to the fiasco caused by having to get their visas via Sri Lanka. Their flights are also very expensive. As the Maldives were a British protectorate until 1965, I ask Her Majesty’s Government to do something to help those students.
The lives of 3,400 members of the Iranian opposition are at stake in Iraq. The promises made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty must be honoured, and we have to take a stand against the human rights violations occurring there.
Unfortunately, I am concerned about a number of election practices in Southend. On polling day, people seem to be displaying their names and pictures right outside the polling stations. The policemen go round to the polling stations, but I wonder what they are looking for. The Electoral Commission needs to look into those issues.
The highlight of the Olympic torch relay has already happened. It took place on 6 July when the torch came to Southend. It was greeted by a choir of 6,000 on the Esplanade singing the anthem “Let your light shine”, composed by Tolga Khashif. I congratulate Southend Metal and the council on doing a superb job of organising the event. An official who had been with the torch throughout its journey said that the Southend event was the best by a mile.
Southend-on-Sea borough council was named local authority of the year 2012 at the Local Government Chronicle awards in March. I congratulate the mayor of Southend, Sally Carr, the chief executive, Rob Tinlin, and his hard-working officers, the leader of the council, Nigel Holdcroft and Councillor John Lamb, along with everyone at the civic centre on their fantastic achievements. I also hope to host a centenarians’ tea party this September, at which we hope to break the record in “Guinness World Records” again. My mother is now eligible to attend. It is for all those reasons that it is an absolute disgrace that Southend has not been designated a city.
I wish everyone in the House a very happy summer recess.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and to have listened to all his suggestions.
On this, the House’s final sitting day before the biggest event that this country will probably ever host, it is only right and proper that we should mention the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. It is now about 10 days until they start, and the M4 and A4, which go through my constituency, are starting to bustle as the athletes and officials arrive, along with the visitors who will be attending the games. The whole United Kingdom is looking forward to an excellent summer of sports and, of course, to lots of British medals.
I would like to focus today on the legacy of the games and on what can be done to maximise it. In fact, I shall pick up on one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West made. London’s bid for the games always included a comprehensive plan for a legacy, to make the most of the event for the whole UK. Among the priorities was the need to harness the UK’s passion for sport in order to increase grass-roots participation by young people and to encourage the whole population to become more physically active. These are the first Olympics to have a school games—that is likely to be copied by Rio in 2016, and further into the future—to which 14,000 schools across the country have signed up. The school games recently had their first finals at the Olympic park.
An extra £500 million will go into sport in the next five years, and much has been done right across the country. Locally, 180 coaches have been trained, and today I have heard that St Mary’s tennis club in Isleworth has secured Olympic legacy funding of just under £50,000 to upgrade its clay court facilities. Many other programmes are being supported, including the Hitz rugby programme, the Dame Kelly Holmes Legacy Trust, and the Kickz football programme delivered by Brentford football club community sports trust and the Met police. There is lots going on.
Another priority for the legacy plans is to exploit the economic growth opportunities offered by our hosting the games. The Prime Minister recently said that we expect the games to bring more than £13 billion of benefit to the UK. On the back of the games, VisitBritain has launched its biggest ever global tourism campaign, supported by the GREAT campaign, which is expected to result in 4.6 million extra visitors.
A further aspect of the legacy will involve developing the Olympic park for regeneration, which is already happening, along with promoting community engagement and achieving participation among all groups in society through the games. I recently attended the Olympic torch relay in Osterley, which brought together primary schools from across the borough. I am now looking forward to my Olympic torch relay, which will take place on 24 July. It will come over Kew bridge before heading through Brentford and on to Hounslow.
My key point today is how we build on that legacy. I would want to build on it by using part of that Olympic funding to support London Air Ambulance. There is a great link, because London Air Ambulance is supporting the Olympics, and sport is, in essence, about health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West mentioned, we have one helicopter in London that covers the entire area within the M25. It supports over 10 million people over 600 square miles. Elsewhere in the country, there is one helicopter for 1.5 million people. If we make comparisons internationally, London looks way behind. We have one air ambulance and no back-up. Last week, maintenance was necessary, and no support was available.
What the air ambulance does is give world-class trauma care, reducing death in cases involving such injuries by 30% to 40%. I am sure that if any Members or their families were involved in a serious accident and were in need of an air ambulance, we would want London Air Ambulance to be available. On 7 July 2005, London’s air ambulance flew 26 missions to the various bomb sites and treated more than 700 people. Demand is increasing across London, and we have to remember that London Air Ambulance is a charity—it is supported by the NHS, but it is a charity—and that it needs additional funding.
I call on the Government and those responsible for legacy development to consider proposals to provide sponsorship support through the London Legacy Development Corporation, with agreement to use the Olympic logo, and help fund another helicopter with the Olympic logo on it that would be part of the long-term legacy and would help to continue to save Londoners’ lives.
I conclude by wishing every success to team GB and everyone involved in the games. I look forward to the London 2012 games and the opportunities they will provide to demonstrate to the world that London is truly the greatest city in the world.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this pre-recess debate. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod): we wish team GB the greatest success in the world. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who mentioned the “Guinness Book of Records”, that he should appear in it for the amount of stuff he can get into a five-minute speech about his constituency and events all across the world? He most certainly should be given such an award.
To be serious, on 7 July, 4½ inches of rain fell in one day on part of my constituency—Axminster, Seaton and Uplyme. There was a great deal of flooding in Axminster, particularly in Willhayes park, where many bungalows were flooded. Several elderly residents were confined to their beds and literally had to be rescued while the water was rising in those bungalows. I have toured the area this last week with the mayor of Axminster, Councillor Andrew Moulding, who has set up a local fund to help residents. It is great to see how the local community has pulled together in Axminster; I was amazed at how stoic the residents whom I went to see were, considering that their houses had been flooded. Anyone who has been into houses that have been flooded will be aware of the smell and contamination that people have to go through.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is touching on an important point about the flooding that has affected many of us in the south-west. Will he join me in congratulating the Environment Agency on its sterling work, particularly in keeping residents fully informed of what was happening, including Members of Parliament?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend must be a mind reader, because I was just about to mention the fact that the Environment Agency has been so good, especially in warning people and getting the warnings through early so that people could take action, where possible, to secure their properties with sandbags. A large flood happened in Axminster where there was a blockage across a railway under a large culvert. The water backed up and there was immediately a huge amount of flooding. In the long run, we need not only to get good flood warnings in place, but to make sure that the culverts are clear and the rivers properly dredged so that we can get rid of the water when it comes.
I accept that when 4½ inches of rainfall comes down in less than 24 hours it is very difficult to handle, but we have to realise that the drainage channels and those rivers are all there for a purpose. That purpose is to drain. Yes, they are very pretty when the water level is kept high and they are allowed to silt up. Indeed, it all looks lovely until the rain starts to come down and we cannot drain the water away fast enough. I hope that Ministers and the Environment Agency will think seriously about that.
We also experienced floods in Uplyme. Down by the village hall, culverts were blocked and, again, there was a great deal of flooding. Fewer properties were involved, but one was badly flooded when a stream came down from the hill. Again the rocks came out and blocked the pipe, and water cascaded through the building. As I have said, it is not possible to solve all the problems, but I think that we need proper drainage channels with proper grilles.
Because I do not possess the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West to raise numerous matters during a short speech and am capable of raising only two or three, I shall now confine myself to raising the serious issue of the price of milk and the problems faced by dairy farmers in my constituency. The constituency contains a great deal of grassland, much of which is dairy farming land in the Blackdown hills and on the edge of Exmoor. The dairy farmers are not receiving the cost of production, and we need to do something about it, because they are experiencing a real problem. When 2,500 dairy farmers from all over the country come to a meeting in London—at Methodist central hall—the strength of feeling is clear. We cannot stand by while supermarkets drive the price of milk down by using it as a loss leader, as a result of which processors and farmers are squeezed.
Members have asked what future young dairy farmers have. I think that they have a good future, but we must ensure that there are more co-operatives. Farmers must come together if they are to have more power in the marketplace. We must also think about future markets. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), has told us that when he went to China he saw many milk products from France, Germany and the Netherlands, but none from Britain. I think that when we have an expanding market in China, it is essential for us to send our milk and milk products over there.
If we do not export enough dairy products and create a demand throughout the country, and if too much liquid milk is flooding the market, it is very difficult to keep the price up for farmers. Farmers in my constituency need a future. They spend a great deal of money themselves throughout the community, and they need to be supported. I hope that the Minister will do something about that, and will establish contracts so that farmers can make a decent living.
Mr Speaker
I intend to call the Deputy Leader of the House at 6.40 pm. I now call Mr Martin Vickers.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I want to raise a matter that is particularly important to northern Lincolnshire. It involves a number of rail issues.
Although yesterday’s announcement of investment in the east coast main line is valuable and welcome, towns such as Cleethorpes, which lie off the main line, also need serious consideration. It is essential for the increased capacity created by the forthcoming investment to allow either the main franchise holder or an open access operator to provide the much-needed direct passenger service from Cleethorpes to London.
Twenty-five years ago, there were four direct trains from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross. They ran via Lincoln and Newark, although I think it more likely that the Scunthorpe-Doncaster route will be used in future. If the potential for economic growth is to gather pace—and the Government’s creation of enterprise zones constitutes recognition of that potential—we must improve connectivity with the capital. That will also boost the tourism economy. As Members will know, Cleethorpes is the jewel in the crown of the east coast resorts.
I was encouraged by what the Secretary of State said yesterday about ensuring that UK-based producers benefit from the construction phase. I hope that everything possible will be done to ensure that, for instance, Tata Steel—which is based in Scunthorpe, where many of my constituents work, and whose most profitable line is the rail track that it produces—benefits from the contracts. We should think not just of those travelling on business, but of commuters and holiday travellers. Tourism is a vital source of revenue for struggling coastal communities. A seminar at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last week highlighted the need for connectivity to these resorts.
In the Cleethorpes constituency, we have Immingham dock, which on Sunday will celebrate its centenary. About 23% of rail freight as measured by tonnes starts or finishes in Immingham. That highlights the importance of improved rail access. The local council estimates that by 2020 50% of containers arriving in the UK will be what the industry refers to as high-cube containers. We must therefore upgrade the gauge from the existing W8 to W10 and W12.
Finally, may I mention the inquiry currently being conducted by the Office of Rail Regulation into higher access charges for freight? This could be detrimental not only to the port of Immingham, but environmentally. If we push more freight traffic on to the roads, that will increase CO2 emissions and be more damaging to our infrastructure, but, more importantly, it will reduce the quality of life of local residents.
I shall conclude my remarks there, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I call the Deputy Leader of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
First, may I pay tribute to our former colleague, Marsha Singh, the former Member for Bradford West, who, sadly, passed away today in untimely fashion? He will be much missed, and I am sure the whole House will wish to send its condolences to his family and friends. May I also say that I, or the relevant Department, will write to any Member who has raised issues that I am unable to cover in the relatively short period of time now available to me?
As always in such debates, we have had an excellent discussion. Some 19 Members contributed. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and I perfectly well understand why she might wish to represent her constituents in the Salford area who are rightly proud of the record of service through the years of that battalion of the former Lancashire Fusiliers, including in the Peninsula war and Gallipoli. We have debated these matters before in the House, however. Every Member will wish to place on record their appreciation of Army units in their own areas, but we must have a modern, efficient and effective armed forces and the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear his intentions. I shall pass on to him the hon. Lady’s reservations in respect of the future of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, however.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) mentioned matters to do with colleges in his constituency. He mentioned apprenticeships, and it is crucial that we build on our great success in increasing the number of apprenticeships. There were 457,200 apprenticeship starts in 2010-11. That is an increase of 63.5%, which is a terrific achievement, but I want to see it replicated in every constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the problems in respect of the Isle of Wight festival. I have some fellow feeling in that regard, as the Glastonbury festival site is on the border of my constituency, and we have on occasions had difficulties with rain and muddy conditions there as well. It is important that the promoters of festivals work very closely with local people. We have had a very good relationship over the years with the Glastonbury festival, and I am sure that he has good relations, too, with the Isle of Wight festival, but it is crucial that promoters and local people work together to the benefit of everybody.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) talked about further and higher education. I understand the points she made, of course, but I would just say to her that this year the proportion of school leavers in England applying to university is the second highest on record. That is extremely encouraging. The Government have also introduced the national scholarship programme, which will greatly help those who come from modest-income backgrounds. It is important that we maintain the principle that higher and further education is open to all and that we maintain social mobility. That is a thrust of the Government’s policy.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about the importance of bearing down on crime in the context of those who enter our country, and he is absolutely right: there is a need for a high level of co-operation between the UK Border Agency and the police, and I believe that is happening. In fact, there is evidence of that in his own constituency, with Operation Coffeeville. Encouragingly, not only were arrests made and successful prosecutions mounted; hopefully, the proceeds of the crime are being retrieved and at the end of the sentence served those people will be deported. That is the way the law should apply. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the police and he is absolutely right to do so. We sometimes forget how much we owe to our excellent police forces. He also discussed the closure of custody suites, and as he knows, I share his concern about that issue. It is a local, operational matter; nevertheless, he rightly mentioned it in this debate.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) talked about the huge changes in Northern Ireland over recent years, and the successes. I share in his celebration—so much is going on in the Province that, a few years ago, would have been unimaginable. If I were to feature one thing, it would be Her Majesty the Queen’s going to a Roman Catholic church in Enniskillen in County Fermanagh.
Mr Heath
A few years ago, it would have been very hard for anyone to give credit to that idea. The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that there are continuing concerns, but rather than looking always at the concerns, let us celebrate the success and the way the process has moved forward.
The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made some incredibly interesting points about e-books. He knows that the Government are trying to achieve fair remuneration for publishers and authors, and provide reassurance against the illegal use of copyrighted material. I think the Minister with responsibility for such matters intends to make a detailed announcement shortly, and what the hon. Gentleman had to say ought to feed into that process.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made a very interesting speech, given that she has served as a civil servant, a Minister and a Member of this House. She talked about the culture of process over delivery within the civil service, and I agree with her that that is the risk. Not all civil servants take that view, but we need to focus on outcomes, and to be more innovative and less hierarchical. She criticised the White Paper for having three forewords; well, better forewords than backwards. Nevertheless, the Government are trying to achieve a better, more effective civil service, and she clearly shares that aspiration. She also mentioned the accountability of Ministers. Of course, that is precisely what we were getting at with the Public Bodies Act 2011. Too often, bodies were remote from Ministers and not accountable to this House. They have now been brought back in-house, where Ministers can account for their actions, and that is absolutely right.
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) kindly said that I did not need to respond to the detailed issues that he raised. He rightly divined that I was probably in a state of complete ignorance about leasehold valuation tribunals and their precise workings, but I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice writes to him on that subject.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) talked about low morale among the staff of this House. I hope that that is not the case. Of course, I should stress that it is not a matter for Government but for you, Mr Speaker, and the House of Commons Commission. However, it would be a matter of great concern if the staff did not feel valued by Members of this House, because they do an admirable job that we consider to be of huge importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) continued his campaign on the family justice system. I draw his attention to the Crime and Courts Bill and, later, to the children and families Bill, which will give him opportunities to raise some of these issues. I think he wanted really to trail his private Member’s Bill, which he did very successfully in his speech. The same can be said of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was trailing her private Member’s Bill on the subject of land value taxation. She correctly said that the Liberal Democrats, and previously the Liberal party, have a very long-standing attachment to this subject; in fact some of our members are hugely attached to it. What she described is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government at the moment, and there are issues to address, one of which was raised in intervention on her, for those who are asset-rich and cash poor. She recognised that, and we shall see what develops.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), again, was trailing a private Member’s Bill that he intends to introduce on petrol and diesel taxation. He spoke warmly of the 1909 people’s Budget, that great achievement of David Lloyd George—it has been downhill ever since then, until the past couple of years. The hon. Gentleman talked about tax transparency and the need for people to understand just how much goes in duty as part of their petrol bill.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about fishing and represented very well the people of Portavogie in his constituency. He drew attention to the movement we have had in the right direction in recent weeks on the reform of fishing policies and the need, nevertheless, to be sensitive to the industry, and to the people in his constituency, in particular. I am grateful to him for raising that with us.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about rural high-speed broadband, which is very dear to my heart. I could wax lyrical about the need for rural high-speed broadband in my constituency and even in my own village; I have often said that a man with a stick would be quicker than our so-called “high-speed broadband”. However, we are looking forward to the sort of change that is going to happen as a result of the Government’s programme on this matter. I do not know whether he was in the House for a previous debate of this kind when an Opposition Member gave his opinion that rural high-speed broadband was simply for “millionaires” to do their “internet shopping”. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and I recognise that that is not the case and that rural high-speed broadband is essential for communities up and down the country, be they in cities or rural areas, so that they can take a proper part in the modern world. I look forward to that happening. He raised a specific point, which I shall arrange for the Department to write to him about, on the position of Kingston Communications. I will pass that on to the relevant Minister.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about the private rented sector, which I know is a big feature in his constituency, although it is important right the way across the country. The most recent figures—this may not apply in Islington but it certainly applies across the country—show that the level of private rent is rising slightly less than general inflation at the moment, so private rental is becoming slightly cheaper. I appreciate that that has not been the case over an extended period. He will know about Sir Adrian Montague’s imminent report on institutional investment, and the key part of that is the overall strategy to increase the supply of new homes. I have to say that this is the key thing for housing policy: simply having more homes. If we have more homes, people will have opportunities to live in them and the price will be more achievable.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) put in a bid to be hired as a TV presenter on the BBC. I have to say that if he became one, the likelihood would be that an entire week’s productions would be concentrated within a half-hour TV slot—blink and you would miss it. People would miss something crucial because he covers so many areas. He covered the London Air Ambulance, which was a subject also raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). The air ambulances across this country, both in London and outside it, provide an essential service. I applaud what they do, as I think it is terrific that they provide that level of service to people who otherwise would be in dire danger from the results of acute trauma. We need to find ways to ensure that it is funded. There has been a debate on this subject recently and I will not reiterate the points raised by the Minister then, but its importance is clear.
The hon. Gentleman raised police and crime commissioners; his constituent Tina Cannadine and her difficulties with DLA; BBC executives; hepatology; sleep apnoea; the problems of students from the Maldives in getting their visas; Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty; election fraud; and the Olympic torch. I am sure that Southend did a very good job with the torch, but I was told by officials that the performance in Somerton was the best that they had seen in the country. Surely they are not saying to us all that we are providing the best coverage of the Olympic torch.
I congratulate Southend borough council on being council of the year. The hon. Gentleman has every reason to look forward to his centenarian’s tea party with his mother, Maud. I feel like I know his family as well as I know that of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), they are mentioned in debates so often. We congratulate her and look forward to that happy occasion.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth talked about the Olympic legacy, which is so important. We are looking forward to that great event, which will be good for sport, for business and for regeneration in this country, but we must ensure that every bit of it leaves a lasting legacy. It should not be something that simply passes, goes and is seen no more. We should benefit from it in the long term and the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to maximise that benefit, not just in the east end of London, which will clearly benefit, but across London and across the wider country.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) talked about the flooding in his area, particularly in the Axminster area. I do not think that there is anything more distressing than flooding. We have experienced it—I found myself in a car that I had to abandon through the windows a few years ago, because it was caught in flood water—and it is frightening, distressing and, for those whose homes are wrecked, it can be a long time before things are back in order. I am grateful to him for raising the issue today, as well as the work that is done by so many of the agencies involved, including the Environment Agency, which takes a lot of trouble to give proper warning. I am also grateful to him for stressing the need for drain and culvert clearance, which are a contributing factor. Nothing will stop flooding when we have torrential rainfall, but if we ensure that drains and culverts are properly cleared we can at least contribute towards mitigating the consequences.
Last but not least, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is another Member whose constituency I feel I have got to know better over the past couple of years, talked about rail improvements. I think he was probably in his place yesterday when we heard the announcement from the Secretary of State of the £9.4 billion package, which is excellent news.
I wish all staff of the House well over the recess, as well as all Members of the House and you, Mr Speaker. Let us look forward to a very enjoyable recess and a wonderfully successful Olympics.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Sittings in Westminster Hall (e-Petitions)
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the following changes be made to Standing Order No.10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) until the end of the next session of Parliament:
(1) In Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall):
(a) in line 3, at the end, add the following new sub-paragraph—
‘(za) on Mondays beginning at half-past four o’clock and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;’.
(b) in line 28, at the end, add the following new paragraph—
‘(3B) (a) The business taken at a Monday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be the e-petition or e-petitions which the Backbench Business Committee has determined should be debated, and each such e-petition shall be debated on the motion, That this House has considered the e-petition from [petitioners] relating to [subject of petition].
(b) Paragraph (10) of this Order shall not apply to proceedings under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; no dilatory motion may be made in relation to proceedings under that sub-paragraph except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such dilatory motion shall be put forthwith.’
(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), line 50, at the end, add:
‘(3AA) In addition to those days allotted under paragraph (3A) of this order, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a sitting in Westminster Hall may be held on a Monday in accordance with paragraph (3) (za) of Standing Order No. 10 to consider e-petitions.’
(3) In Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee), leave out from ‘with’ in line 39 to ‘of’ in line 40 and insert ‘paragraphs (3A) and (3B)’.—(Mr Knight.)
If the signatories to the amendment do not delay matters further, I am happy to accept it.
Amendment made, in line 2, to leave out ‘the next’ and insert ‘this’.—(Mr Bone.)
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the following changes be made to standing orders, until the end of this session of Parliament—
(1) In Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall):
(a) in line 3, at the end, add the following new sub-paragraph—
‘(za) on Mondays beginning at half-past four o’clock and continuing for up to three hours, if the Backbench Business Committee has reported its determination that a sitting in Westminster Hall to consider an e-petition or e-petitions should take place on that day;’.
(b) in line 28, at the end, add the following new paragraph—
‘(3B) (a) The business taken at a Monday sitting in Westminster Hall shall be the e-petition or e-petitions which the Backbench Business Committee has determined should be debated, and each such e-petition shall be debated on the motion, That this House has considered the e-petition from [petitioners] relating to [subject of petition].
(b) Paragraph (10) of this Order shall not apply to proceedings under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph; no dilatory motion may be made in relation to proceedings under that sub-paragraph except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such dilatory motion shall be put forthwith.’
(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), line 50, at the end, add:
‘(3AA) In addition to those days allotted under paragraph (3A) of this order, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a sitting in Westminster Hall may be held on a Monday in accordance with paragraph (3) (za) of Standing Order No. 10 to consider e-petitions.’
(3) In Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee), leave out from ‘with’ in line 39 to ‘of’ in line 40 and insert ‘paragraphs (3A) and (3B)’.
Mr Speaker
May I reciprocate the great courtesy shown by the Deputy Leader of the House? I wish him and all Members of the House an extremely relaxing and restorative summer recess.
petition
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Homeopathic medicines deliver a health care option to many people, including in my constituency. For many of them, the issue relates to freedom and personal choice.
The petition I present is from people in my constituency who are concerned that section 10 of the consolidated Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should remain unchanged. I believe the Government are not willing at this stage to agree a change, but a marker needs to be put down. A small but well co-ordinated group with an anti-homeopathy agenda must be resisted by MPs and by Government. Choice on access to homeopathic medicines is paramount, and it must be retained and enshrined by Government. The petition requests that the status quo continue.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the citizens of the UK.
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about proposed changes to the Medicines Act that may restrict access to homeopathic medicine.
Wherefore your Petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that any changes to the Medicine Act allow greater freedom to homeopathic practitioners to dispense remedies.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001112]
Bail (Dangerous Drivers)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for his tenacity on behalf of his constituents and for securing this debate on an issue that he has already raised with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I would like to begin by expressing once again our sympathy to the family of Jamie Still, who was taken so early from them and in such tragic circumstances. As my hon. Friend reminded us, in April, he and I met Karen Strong, Jamie’s mother, as well as Jamie’s grandfather, Peter Strong, and his sister, Rebecca. We were able to discuss their concerns about the case in some detail. The Prime Minister has continued to take a personal interest in the case.
Something that contributed in no small measure to the family’s distress in this case is the time that elapsed between the incident and the suspect being charged, which was no less than five months. Although it is essential in any case, let alone one with such tragic circumstances, that the right charge is brought against the suspect, it is right that we should seek to do better, and we are. We have just published our proposals to reform the criminal justice system to deliver swift and sure justice. A swifter outcome in this case would have been preferable for all parties.
To explain the time taken in this case, I should point out that it is a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system that due process is followed, so even when some evidence appears to be very strong, charging decisions cannot be made under the full code test in the code for Crown prosecutors until all the relevant circumstances have been investigated by the police and all relevant evidence has been reviewed by a prosecutor. The investigation and gathering of evidence can sometimes be a lengthy process, and it can take a considerable time from when an offence is committed to when a charging decision is made. The importance attached to such serious cases is reflected by the fact that the final decision on the most appropriate charge in this case was taken at one of the highest levels of the Crown Prosecution Service.
However, after the decision to charge was made, it took another three months before the defendant was convicted and sentenced after he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. This offence is an indictable-only one; in other words, it must be tried in the Crown court. In such cases, defendants cannot plead until they reach the Crown court. Until very recently, there was no formal opportunity for a defendant in such a case who wished to plead guilty to let the magistrates know. The criminal procedure rules have now been changed, with the result that an early appearance can be arranged in the Crown court when a defendant has signalled that he intends to plead guilty. Even when the defendant has not done so, it may be that the case could be identified by the CPS as one in which a guilty plea is likely and thus listed for an early Crown court hearing. Arrangements enabling this to happen—the so-called early guilty plea system—have been piloted in Liverpool, Bristol, Winchester and Reading, and are now being adopted in many more Crown court centres. Such initiatives complement the principles of swift and sure justice that underlie the recent White Paper on criminal justice system reform. However, my hon. Friend has made clear the pain of the eight months of seeing Max McRae, the guilty drunken driver, still driving, and I hope that the change that I have outlined might address that to some degree.
The offender in this case pleaded guilty and expressed remorse to the court. A guilty plea is welcome, not only because it enables cases to be resolved more quickly but because it may indicate willingness on the part of offenders to face up to what they have done. Restorative justice can go further in helping offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and their impact on others. I am convinced that in the right circumstances a restorative process can be highly beneficial, but it can only meaningfully take place when offenders admit responsibility and they and the victims have been assessed as fully able and willing to engage in it.
The important thing about restorative justice is that it makes the victims central to the justice process. Jamie’s relatives expressed understandable upset to me that McRae offered remorse to the court but not to them. It is not clear what advice he received about whether such an expression would have been welcome or whether Jamie’s relatives had been counselled as to what they could expect in a proper restorative justice process. The only observation that I would make is that in over two years of meeting prisoners, this group of offenders tends to stand out as the most remorseful and the most conscious of the appalling and irreparable hurt they have caused. This case further convinces me of the need to improve our capacity for victims to have access to properly mediated restorative justice, and we are actively considering this in our policy development on victims and witnesses.
The central issue for my hon. Friend is that the offender was permitted to continue driving while he was under investigation and awaiting trial. He will know that it is open to the police and the courts to require as a condition of bail, alongside any other conditions that are considered necessary, that a suspect or defendant must not drive while on bail. While a person is being investigated for an offence, the question of bail is an operational matter for the police. Once a suspect has been charged with an offence and appears in court, the question of bail becomes one for the court. If there are substantial grounds for believing that a suspect, if released on bail, will commit further offences, fail to surrender to bail, or interfere with witnesses, the police or the court may grant bail with one or more conditions attached. A condition that would prohibit a suspect from driving is an option if it is thought necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
The police and the courts have to make difficult decisions, balancing the need to protect the rights of individuals who are suspected of a crime against the need to protect victims of crime and all other members of the public. It cannot be the purpose of any bail condition to anticipate the punishment that a defendant might receive if he were convicted of the offence with which he has been charged, or that a suspect might receive if he were charged and convicted. The purpose of bail conditions is simply to protect the public from the consequences of further offending, or to secure the smooth running of justice by ensuring that the defendant turns up at a police station or in court.
That is why, although it may be likely or even inevitable that a person who has been charged with certain motoring offences will be banned from driving if he or she is convicted, it does not follow that a driving ban should be imposed as a condition of bail. It is a question of risk. The difficult task facing the court, with the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service, is to assess that risk.
I recognise that there are cases where the nature of the offence suggests that a risk exists. It is arguable—and I have some sympathy with this view—that the incident in which Jamie Still was killed on that new year’s eve is such an example. An innocent young man died as a result of an incident that combined alleged careless driving and driving with significantly more than the permitted level of alcohol. It is arguable that a no-drive condition is, on the face of it, suitable in such circumstances. However, it is the duty of the court to carry out the risk assessment. The Crown Prosecution Service has a vital role to play in the process, because the prosecutor may make representations in relation to the grant of bail following Jamie’s case.
Earlier this year, all prosecutors were reminded of the need for a careful approach on the question of whether to oppose bail in cases of bad driving that has resulted in death. The Director of Public Prosecutions is in the process of reviewing the Crown Prosecution Service’s policy on bad driving cases in general. That includes a review of the approach taken by prosecutors on the question of bail in such cases, especially where the incident results in the death of a victim. I anticipate that, with regard to fatal collisions, the guidance will emphasise the appropriateness of a no-drive bail condition when the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that if the defendant is released on bail, he will present a danger to other road users by committing further driving offences.
There will be a public consultation on the review later in the year. That will be an opportunity for the public in general, Jamie Still’s family, my hon. Friend and any other family who have suffered a similar tragedy to make their views known. I will keep my hon. Friend informed about the progress on this matter.
Essentially, it has to remain the position that every case will be treated on its merits. It is right that, where necessary, Parliament will provide statutory requirements for courts to follow and that organisations will provide guidelines on how to approach cases to make sure that there is consistency in standards. We ensure that legislation upholds the rights and needs of everyone who is affected by the criminal justice system in this country and we allow the professionals to apply the requirements correctly in each and every case.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing this debate and on raising this tragic case. I commend him for the tenacious way in which he campaigns on behalf of his constituents. I know that he will await the outcome of the review by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as we all will. Changes have already been made in the light of the tragedy that overtook Jamie Still and I anticipate that there will be further changes following the review.
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the officials of the House an enjoyable and agreeable recess as we enjoy the success of our Olympic athletes.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Council Tax Benefit Localisation
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Stunell
That brings me to the contributions of hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales and Scotland. In both those nations, the allocation of the reduction is strictly in accordance with the Barnett formula, and that reduction is no more ring-fenced in its decrease than any increase under the formula. It is entirely a matter for the Welsh and Scottish Administrations to decide how to proceed on the schemes in their respective countries. It is important to make that point.
[Official Report, 27 June 2012, Vol. 547, c. 97WH.]
Letter of correction from Andrew Stunell:
An error has been identified in the closing speech given during the Westminster Hall debate on 27 June 2012. The error relates to the method by which the funding for localised council tax support to be allocated to the Scottish and Welsh Government for council tax support will be calculated.
The correct version is as follows:
Andrew Stunell
That brings me to the contributions of hon. Members representing constituencies in Wales and Scotland. In both those nations, it is intended that the allocation of the reduction will be in accordance with shares of current expenditure on council tax benefit, and that reduction is no more ring-fenced in its decrease than any increase in shares of expenditure. It is entirely a matter for the Welsh and Scottish Administrations to decide how to proceed on the schemes in their respective countries. It is important to make that point.
Petition
Cyber bullying
Westminster Hall
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
Zimbabwe (Blood Diamonds)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard? It is a delight to speak under your guidance, as a fellow south Wales valleys Member of Parliament. I immediately pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey); in her chairmanship of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, she has provided inspirational leadership for a long time.
In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/55/56, supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. That led to the Kimberley process, a mechanism for negotiations, and the international treaty banning blood diamonds, established under UN Security Council resolution 1459 in January 2003. I put a great deal of effort into achieving that when I was British Minister for Africa, because illegally traded blood diamonds were paying for arms, which fuelled conflicts in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Sierra Leone, where those very arms were used against British troops by terrorists. Now we are seeing a different kind of blood diamond from Marange in Zimbabwe, and it is high time that the Kimberley process and the World Diamond Council stopped turning a blind eye to serious abuse with an anti-democratic, violent purpose.
The history of Zimbabwe has been punctuated with violence. Cecil Rhodes’s exercise of colonial power in southern Africa was built on a monopoly of violence. Until it was swept away by the liberation war, which I supported as a British anti-apartheid leader at the time, Ian Smith’s racist Rhodesian regime used violence against opponents demanding democracy. Robert Mugabe’s ZANU, first elected in a landslide victory in 1980, betrayed the freedom struggle that it once led with distinction, by systematically using violence as a political strategy to maintain power and the privileges of an increasingly corrupt mafia surrounding him. Killings, torture and beatings of ZANU-PF opponents and massive human rights abuses accompanied the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2008. Mugabe’s regime specialised in stealing those elections by violence.
My fear is that Zimbabwe’s forthcoming election, due by June next year, might be no different despite the Government of national unity, who have given some relief to their beleaguered, suffering nation. In that Government, the Movement for Democratic Change has been given the Ministries of Finance, Education and Health, among others. ZANU-PF retained the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Mines and the Office of the President, the home of Zimbabwe’s feared secret police—the Central Intelligence Organisation or CIO. Since the MDC took control of the Ministry of Finance and clipped the wings of the Reserve bank, the security mafia loyal to President Mugabe has been on a hunt for sources of off-budget finance. It has now found those sources, thanks to an accident of geology and the failures of the international community.
In 2006, diamonds were found in the Marange fields in eastern Zimbabwe. The area holds one of the world’s richest deposits of alluvial diamonds. The gems lie close to the surface of the ground, making them easy to collect by hand. During 2008, the military deployed soldiers and helicopter gunships during the clearance of thousands of small-scale miners from the Marange diamond fields, killing and wounding many people in the process. Nearly every soldier in Marange is involved in one way or another in illegal mining. Soldiers have formed syndicates of diamond panners, whom they protect and escort.
Many of the diamonds are smuggled to the town of Vila de Manica, in Mozambique, only 12 miles from the Zimbabwe border. It is crawling with illegal dealers from countries such as Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Israel, most living in smart houses, bristling with barbed wire and CCTV cameras, and guarded by armed men, admitting they do so with the help of army syndicates and senior ZANU-PF politicians.
Global Witness deserves our thanks for its impressive report, “Financing a Parallel Government?”, which has unearthed devastating evidence on Zimbabwe’s blood diamond trade. In Zimbabwe, mineral rights are vested not in the state, but with the President. Robert Mugabe has granted a series of mining concessions. One was to Canadile, a company that has since collapsed amid allegations of corruption, including against Obert Mpofu, the ZANU-PF Minister of Mines. Mpofu is a man on a £1,200 monthly salary, who is now rich enough to spend over £13 million buying a bank. Another was to Mbada Diamonds. Its chief executive officer, Robert Mhlanga, a Mugabe crony, is developing a £20-million mansion in Ballito, KwaZulu-Natal. Behind Mbada Diamonds and up to its neck in its shady start-up, is a South African scrap metal company, New Reclamation, and its former chief executive officer, South African business man David Kassell.
South African business interests were heavily involved in mining diamonds in Marange or profiting from their irregular sale, in what the South African Broadcasting Company last October reported as a:
“blatant disregard for the rule of law and continued plundering of the diamond fields in Eastern Zimbabwe. New evidence suggests that South African firms have muscled in, and are mining there illegally.”
In 2011, 25% of the shares of Mbada were transferred to a mysterious network of shell companies based in Mauritius, Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. Those companies are connected to Robert Mhlanga, a retired air vice-marshal in the Zimbabwean air force. The use of secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens should raise a red flag for any legitimate businesses trading with Mbada. They should be asking the question, who are the real beneficial owners of Mbada? We have seen with Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi how banks, lawyers and businesses colluded in illicit financial outflows of national wealth. I fear that that is being repeated in Zimbabwe.
A third mining concession was to Sino Zimbabwe Development and a fourth to Anjin Investments. Sino Zimbabwe Development purports to be a joint venture between the state-owned Zimbabwe minerals development corporation and an investor, Sam Pa—a businessman from the Queensway syndicate, a network of companies based in Hong Kong, Singapore and Angola. Sam Pa and the Queensway syndicate were the subject of a recent feature in The Economist, which raised two issues in particular. The first was the Queensway syndicate’s amoral deal in Guinea. Just one month after security forces massacred 150 protestors in a stadium, the syndicate signed a multi-billion dollar deal with the Guinea junta—effectively providing a financial lifeline to that pariah regime. Secondly, The Economist alleged that the syndicate was buying Angolan oil ridiculously cheaply and selling it on at market prices to Chinese oil companies—suggesting the Angolan people may have been cheated out of billions of dollars.
In Zimbabwe, several sources suggest that Sam Pa gave the secret police—the CIO—a large sum of money, which one CIO document places at $100 million, and over 200 Nissan pick-up trucks. In return for that apparent assistance, Sino Zimbabwe Development was granted opportunities in Zimbabwe’s diamond and cotton sectors. Sino Zimbabwe Development was set up and registered in Zimbabwe and Singapore. The Singaporean company is in turn part-owned by Strong Achieve Holdings, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and controlled by someone believed to be a member of the Zimbabwean secret police. That, again, illustrates the highly disreputable role of the British Virgin Islands in facilitating such murky dealings. Sino Zimbabwe Development is ostensibly a legitimate business. Yet its three Zimbabwean directors, Gift Kallisto Machengete, Masimba Ignatius Kamba and Pritchard Zhou, are all believed to be members of the CIO, and the firm is in reality a front company for the Zimbabwean secret police.
Anjin Investments purports to be a joint venture between a previously unknown Zimbabwean firm, Matt Bronze, and a Chinese construction company. In reality, Anjin’s company secretary is Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa, who is also the Judge Advocate General at Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Defence, and is on the EU sanctions list for orchestrating violence. Anjin’s executive board includes Martin Rushwaya, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and serving and retired military and police officers. Anjin claims to be the biggest diamond mining company in the world and has been described by informed observers as having the potential to be the next De Beers. In reality, Anjin is a front for the Zimbabwean military; nor does that shadowy activity involve only diamonds.
On 27 June, the Russian business newspaper Kommersant reported that Zimbabwean officials had approached Russian companies with a prospective platinum deal in exchange for attack helicopters. A Russian joint venture, named by Kommersant as involved in the deal, is called Russ Zim and Rushchrome. The deal is ostensibly with the parastatal Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. However, Anjin’s Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa is company secretary of the Russian joint venture, and the chairman of its executive board is Martin Rushwaya, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is on the board of Anjin. Again, the planned deal seems to have been cooked up by the Zimbabwean military-industrial complex.
Why is that important? First, the Zimbabwean military and secret police are known for their uncompromising support for ZANU-PF. It has even been alleged that money from Sam Pa has been allocated to a CIO smear campaign against MDC Prime Minister Tsvangirai, called Operation Spiderweb. If the secret police have access to off-budget sources of funding, they can set and finance their own agenda, in flagrant breach of democratic and civilian control of the security forces budget.
Secondly, Zimbabwe desperately needs tax revenues. Life expectancy at birth in Zimbabwe is 47 for a man and 50 for a woman. The Government are slowly rebuilding the education and health infrastructure after the devastation wrought by years of misrule and the hyper-inflation of 2008. Out of a budget of US $4 billion, the MDC Finance Minister Tendai Biti was promised US $600 million in diamond revenues by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development. Yet he recently stated that Anjin had not paid one cent to the Zimbabwean Treasury, adding that Anjin’s failure to remit diamond proceeds to the consolidated revenue fund was in breach of the constitution. Anjin claims that it paid some money to the ZANU-PF-controlled Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. Yet none of that has yet reached the Finance Ministry’s consolidated revenue fund. Diamond revenues are being siphoned off when Zimbabwe needs teachers and nurses, not attack helicopters and secret police thugs.
Thirdly, there is a risk that any money given by Sam Pa, Anjin and Sino Zimbabwe Development to the security forces will fund human rights abuses in the run-up to next year’s election. Let us remember that, to cling on to power in the 2008 election, soldiers, ZANU supporters, secret policemen and so-called war veterans—a pseudonym for Mugabe’s thugs—killed 200 people, tortured and assaulted 5,000 and forced 36,000 more to flee their homes.
What can the British Government do? I urge them to engage with the Southern African Development Community facilitators to push security sector reform and democratic and civilian control of budgets up the agenda in forthcoming negotiations. In the long term, much more must be done to regulate the diamond industry properly. I feel strongly that the Kimberley process certification scheme, which is designed to stop the trade in blood diamonds, has failed to deliver on the original objectives that we designed for it during my time as a Foreign Office Minister between 2000 and 2002. It has three weaknesses that have not been addressed. It does not cover polished gems—only rough diamonds. It applies only to crimes committed by rebel groups, not to human rights abuses committed by Governments such as Zimbabwe’s. It does not enforce its own rules properly: the scheme is found wanting when confronted with problems in Venezuela, Côte d’Ivoire and Zimbabwe.
The Kimberley process report on Anjin praises the modern security procedures of the company, makes small recommendations to reduce the risk of theft and smuggling and thanks the Minister of Mines for his co-operation, yet not once does it ask who owns Anjin. That is wilful blindness, and it has led member states, including the UK, acting through the EU, to authorise exports of Anjin diamonds.
Let us be clear: Zimbabwean military-controlled blood diamonds are now sold in the EU and almost certainly in the UK, appearing on wedding rings all over the place. It is time for jewellery companies to stop hiding behind the facade of the Kimberley process and to take responsibility for their own supply chains. Each company must ask, “Where do my diamonds come from, under what conditions are they mined and traded, and who benefits from their sale?” That system, known in the jargon as supply chain due diligence, was first developed for the trade in conflict minerals sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It should be adapted for the trade in diamonds and other gems, so that those resources can play a constructive role in the development of other countries at risk, such as Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Burma.
I urge the British Government to commission the OECD, which has played an important role in working out the details of such a scheme for the trade in gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum, to examine how it could be applied to precious stones such as diamonds. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.
The European Union has placed many individuals and entities on restrictive measures: travel bans and asset freezes. One such entity is the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation and its subsidiaries and joint ventures. Bizarrely, Anjin is not on the sanctions list, despite there being a more compelling case for its inclusion than for the inclusion of other mining firms that are sanctioned by virtue of their association with the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation. Recently, the Zimbabwean Deputy Minister of Mines stated in Parliament that
“Anjin is owned by the Chinese and the Government of Zimbabwe where ZMDC owns 10% and Zimbabwe Defence Industries owns a 40% shareholding”.
Given that both Zimbabwe Defence Industries, which is wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and the ZMDC are already on sanctions lists, it seems to me that Anjin should be listed as well, not least on the grounds that it is a subsidiary of listed entities.
Even stranger, in my view, is the news that at its Foreign Ministers Council on Monday the EU proposes to remove or suspend some or all targeted sanctions. To do that less than a year before Zimbabwe’s next election could be very damaging. Are EU and UK officials really suggesting removing an asset freeze on someone like Didymus Mutasa, the former State Security Minister, who is accused by the EU of being
“involved in murders in Manicaland”,
or lifting the EU travel ban on our old friend Brigadier Charles Tarumbwa, who is accused by the EU of being
“directly involved in the terror campaign waged before and during the elections”
and of being in charge of a
“torture base in Makoni West, Mutasa Central in 2007/2008”?
Instead of suspending sanctions at the behest of ZANU-PF, Monday’s EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting and the British Government should argue for Sam Pa, Anjin and Sino Zimbabwe Development to be placed on the EU’s targeted sanctions list and for the Zimbabwe Minerals Development Corporation to remain on the list. That should remain the case at least until the election—probably less than 12 months away—has passed off peacefully.
If the intention is to wave a carrot and not just a stick, by all means suspend sanctions against some of those lower down the ZANU-PF command list, or examine the more calibrated strategy that is recommended by the International Crisis Group and that is being considered by southern African countries, but we must ensure that substantive sanctions, such as asset freezes on Anjin and Sam Pa, are imposed so that the security forces cannot build a war chest before the election.
If off-budget financing of the security forces is not addressed immediately, regardless of what happens to Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe could soon be ruled by a free-floating securocrat elite: unaccountable, unelectable and unstoppable. More than enough damage has been done already to the wonderful people of Zimbabwe, as a once-prosperous country has been reduced to penury. Let us ensure that we do not perpetuate the terrible damage that has been done by premature suspensions of highly targeted sanctions, especially on those who are responsible for the Marange blood diamonds, when the imperative is to impose more not less.
The World Diamond Council and Governments with a substantial diamond trade must act to block blood diamonds from Marange, or the whole diamond trade could well find itself tarnished and targeted by boycotts and protesters, just as was threatened until it acted in 2000. I hope that hon. Members will consider these matters and that the Government will take forward the policies that I have recommended for targeted sanctions.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on securing this debate. Much of what he said was incredibly interesting and important, and I am grateful to him for the lesson that he gave.
My own involvement in southern Africa began in 1979 when I spent four months in Zimbabwe, Malawi and South Africa. I had two great uncles working for the Colonial Service in Nyasaland, which is now Malawi, and a cousin who ran a fruit farm in the east highlands. In 1994, I gave advice to one of the political parties involved in the general election campaign in Malawi. Such experience gave me a good understanding of the political and cultural differences between this country and the west and southern Africa.
I will not pretend for one moment that I have a better knowledge of southern Africa than the right hon. Gentleman. None the less, my understanding of the region’s culture, coupled with my experience as a Conservative party agent, means that I understand the need for organisation within places. Added to that, my first ever job was working for the Diamond Corporation, so I have a little understanding of how the diamond world operates and how important southern Africa is to the whole industry.
Let me explain where Zimbabwe is at the moment and how it has got there. In 1965, as the Federation was falling to pieces, Ian Smith declared independence. From that moment on, with perhaps a short period of respite, Zimbabwe has had a very chequered career. UDI lasted for about 15 years and only became unsustainable following a bloody and difficult civil war. Zimbabwe was always considered to be the bread basket of Africa, and was able to deliver food to a part of the world that desperately needed it.
Zimbabwe is a country of strategic importance, as it is the gateway to South Africa, which is the principal regional power in this part of the world. We need to be working very closely with the Southern African Development Community and other countries in the region to deliver the route map that has been agreed. We also need to ensure that the international community begins to prepare for life after Mugabe has gone. Indeed, my understanding is that Mugabe is not well. He is thought to have prostate cancer and is spending a lot of time in Singapore. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have a solution for the future that enables us to get close to the region. We need to encourage the moderates within ZANU-PF for the time when Mugabe has gone.
Although the west views Mugabe as a demon whose regime is most certainly responsible for a series of murderous and bloody attacks, he is still seen, in many parts of southern Africa, as one of the great heroes of the struggle for independence. When the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I were in Zimbabwe last year, we heard the story of how President Zuma took Mugabe into a crowded football stadium, with some 50,000 people, and welcomed him as a war hero. That is one of the difficulties facing President Zuma; how does he keep on side the balance of those people in his country on whom he depends for election but, at the same time, help to deliver this route map as well?
I will not pretend for one moment that Mugabe’s presidency has been a success; it most certainly was at the very beginning but unfortunately, as he has become more isolated, he has turned to more and more violent activities. I am concerned that the proceeds from the Marange diamonds have ended up being used in a corrupt way to fund the ZANU-PF coffers as it prepares for the general election when that happens—probably in the next year.
We must build relationships with the more moderate elements of ZANU-PF and ensure that we work with them to develop a governance process that will lead to an independent judicial system and a police force that is not corrupt. That is incredibly important. I have been talking with my hon. Friends in the Foreign Office about how we might develop a staff college to help those people from the emerging countries, especially places such as Zimbabwe, and show them how to set up a proper judicial system and a police force that is not corrupt. If we do not do that, people will not be willing to invest in Zimbabwe. They will say to themselves, “What is the point of us putting money and investment into Zimbabwe, if it is just going to end up being filtered and dealt with in a corrupt manner?”
When the hon. Member for Vauxhall and I were in Zimbabwe last year, we heard that some investments from South Africa were under a real threat of being confiscated. If that happens, frankly it will be very difficult to encourage anybody to invest in Zimbabwe.
One of the things that we need to do is to work very closely with South Africa to deliver a route map, and I hope that the Minister will take note of that point. We need to ensure that there is decent registration, and that we have observers in the country during the course of the registration process and before the election. If we do not do that, once again—unfortunately—ZANU-PF and Mugabe will go and steal the election, which would be very difficult to accept. We also need to have an approach that recognises that those people in what is probably the medium part of the military feel that if there is somebody else in power they are going to lose all of their assets. Adopting that approach is going to be another thing that is very difficult for us to go through.
I am also very keen to ensure that we recognise that southern Africa has a fundamental part in the whole of the world political strategy. Indeed, the Cape routes have always been incredibly important to us, because by using them we can ensure that we can export a lot of our goods. It would be most unfortunate if the submarines bases down in Simonstown were to fall into the wrong hands. That could be a threat as far as we are concerned.
As I say, having a judicial system that is free and independent is absolutely vital. I have recently heard stories of some Dutch farmers who have made quite a large investment in Zimbabwe. They have been in a court case and they are having real difficulty in trying to ensure that they can get the moneys that they are owed paid to them.
In conclusion, we need to ensure that there is support for the route map, and also that the more moderate people in ZANU-PF will have the opportunity to find a way out and do not feel that the west has totally and utterly turned its back on a lot of people. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s attitude towards Zimbabwe.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is very nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Havard. It is also very nice to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, of which I am the chair.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for his persistence in securing this debate and for the fact that we are lifting the veil of darkness that sometimes hangs over the whole of the diamond industry generally and particularly in Zimbabwe. He was an outstanding Minister for Africa and I am absolutely delighted that now he is back on the Back Benches he is again able to get more positively engaged in helping Zimbabwe, because his knowledge of southern Africa is absolutely tremendous.
I share most of my right hon. Friend’s analysis—in fact, all of it. I will not go through some of the issues related to individuals involved in the Marange diamond area, but I want to raise some further issues related to that area. Having said that, I am absolutely delighted that over the years the all-party group on Zimbabwe has managed to keep some of these issues about Marange to the forefront. Just a couple of years ago, in June 2010, the then vice-chair of the group, Baroness D’Souza, who is now obviously in charge of the House of Lords, and I wrote to Stéphane Chardon, the EU representative who chaired the Kimberley process Working Group on Monitoring at that time. We expressed our grave concern about the way that human rights abuses and reports of killings in the Marange diamond field were being investigated by the group. We did so because in the many years since the situation in Zimbabwe became really serious the UK Government and other Governments around the world have felt powerless, but through the Kimberley process and through having an EU appointee as chair of the group we had some direct responsibility and control. With many of the points that my right hon. Friend made, we need to look at how the Kimberley process is working and consider whether we can make some effective changes.
I pay tribute to some of the members of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, particularly some of those in the House of Lords, who have continued to probe and ask questions about Zimbabwe. Lord Avebury, Baroness Kinnock and Baroness Boothroyd have been assiduous in keeping pressure on our Government and—indirectly—on the EU, and in ensuring that Government Ministers of whatever party have remained closely engaged with Zimbabwe. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the current Minister for Africa, for the close personal interest that he has taken in Zimbabwe and indeed in the whole of southern Africa. I am sorry that he is not here for this debate today. When he phoned me yesterday, he was in Malawi, so I know that he is very intent on trying to see what the British Government can do to help the process in southern Africa.
Of course, Zimbabwe is of close interest to British taxpayers. Through our international development programme, we are expected to pick up the bill eventually—it is quite right that we should do so, and I have no problem with it—for rebuilding much of the infrastructure and institutions of the terribly ruined country of Zimbabwe. However, it would be the most appalling irony if the revenue from the massive national windfall of diamonds should end up in the pockets and overseas bank accounts of the very same army officers and ZANU-PF politicians who have wrecked Zimbabwe, especially if they are allowed to use that windfall to buy weapons, tanks and other vehicles to extend their illegal grip on power.
There is no doubt that, as my right hon. Friend has already said, ZANU-PF functionaries and Ministers are effectively running a parallel economy in Zimbabwe. That is clearly chronicled in the excellent report on Zimbabwe by Global Witness and it is something that we just cannot ignore.
I will mention one particular British company that sometimes does not get mentioned in discussions of Zimbabwe, but that has an involvement in the country. That company is Old Mutual. Last year, we met the chairman of Old Mutual, Patrick O’Sullivan, and its chief executive of long-term savings, Paul Hanratty, here in London just before one of the company’s annual general meetings, where some people were turning up to protest against the fact that Old Mutual’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Old Mutual Investment Group (South Africa) or OMIGSA, had invested in a South African company, the New Reclamation Group, which of course my right hon. Friend has already referred to. New Reclamation Group has a very poor reputation in Johannesburg. It is in fact, as has been said, more or less a scrap metals merchant. It basically presented a business case to Old Mutual to invest in the Mbada Diamonds company, and that investment was made.
We just cannot ignore the fact that a British company is involved in this way. When we talked to the chairman and chief executive of Old Mutual, of course they made the point that they are representing their shareholders and they cannot actually make policy. However, there is a moral judgment to be made in some of this activity, and as a primary landowner and property manager in Zimbabwe Old Mutual is interwoven within the fabric of society and its investment policy, far from being apolitical or just about business, plays a really important role in the country, and if it wishes to avoid perceptions of collusion or acquiescence in the continuing repression and human rights violations in Zimbabwe, it should disengage completely from anything that is linked with blood diamonds, and I call on it to do so.
I want to talk very briefly about a worry that exists at the moment and that was referred to by my right hon. Friend in his speech. It is a worry about the rumours—in fact, they are not rumours, because we all know that there are discussions on this subject going on within the EU—about whether there could be suspension of some of the sanctions that have been imposed. We need to start from the understanding that we are not involved in a “blame game” about who is right or wrong on whether we should consider suspending sanctions; it is a situation in which everyone wants to do the right thing. Sometimes when we are over here discussing what is happening in Zimbabwe, what may seem to us the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing to the people who are involved in the struggle in Zimbabwe.
There is a strong push, particularly from the Southern African Development Community and South Africa, for a carrot in the form of a vote on the new constitution, probably in an October referendum, as part of the global political agreement—the GPA. That would allow the process to go forward to free and fair elections next year, and I understand that we would then suspend sanctions. The detail may not yet be finalised as to how many would be suspended and whether it would be just sanctions on individuals or also direct sanctions involving, for example, the EU’s funding of industry in Zimbabwe, but they would not be lifted, or rather not suspended—it is important that I use the correct terminology—until such time as there was a free and well-organised referendum on the constitution.
It would be easy for a free and relatively peaceful referendum to take place in the autumn, but those who continue to be able to turn on the tap of violence can do so almost at will, and I worry that once we have suspended the sanctions—should we get a free constitutional process—it will be easy for that tap to be turned on extremely quickly. The violence is still there, whenever ZANU-PF and its apparatchiks want to carry out some atrocity. Just last weekend, they stopped a Movement for Democratic Change rally, so it is clear that they can do huge damage at will, and the money from the illegal diamond sales makes it easier for the violence to be turned on, with the machinery that they have.
SADC and South Africa are absolutely crucial, but I have mixed feelings, and am concerned. Perhaps when discussing the suspension of sanctions we can tie South Africa and SADC into the process, so that if some of the sanctions were suspended, but the GPA were not then fulfilled and violence started again, we could be absolutely certain that South Africa and the other SADC countries would do what they have said they would do if the sanctions were suspended. Disappointingly, the SADC leaders have, time after time, seen their solidarity not with the people of Zimbabwe, not with all those who have bravely and patiently struggled to represent the democratic will of the people, but with the crooks, bullies and corrupt people who are committed to keeping Mugabe in power at any price. If the British Government and the European Union suspend sanctions they will be putting huge trust in SADC, and in South Africa in particular as the guarantor of the safety and rights of the Zimbabwean people, and we must be certain that that trust will be rewarded in full by an unequivocal refusal by South Africa, leading the rest of SADC, to excuse or turn a blind eye to any resurgence of violence.
I do not believe that Mugabe will give up power peacefully, or that he will want what we would call a genuinely free and fair election—even with the best will in the world, I do not think that we can have a really free and fair election as we would see it. We can make next year’s election much better than the last one, but only if South Africa and SADC unequivocally accept that they have an international responsibility, and the quid pro quo of removing the ridiculous idea that the sanctions have caused Zimbabwe’s economic crisis. We all know— even the most extreme member of ZANU-PF knows— that that is nonsense, but it has been a potent weapon, used particularly in rural areas where the broadcasting media are still totally in ZANU-PF’s hands, and that has not changed under the GPA. The newspaper media are slightly freer, but the broadcasting media, which are the ones that get into the rural areas, are 100% ZANU-PF dominated. The SADC leaders have too often allowed Mugabe that kind of propaganda victory, by remaining silent on the violence until relatively recently and speaking out only to condemn the targeted measures imposed under the Cotonou agreement.
Many many years ago, when we were young, my right hon. Friend and I joined together in protests about apartheid in South Africa, in what was called the Stop the Seventy Tour, but nothing we did is an excuse for the unleashing of violence and intimidation on Zimbabweans just because Mugabe has a problem with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the United States. Such things are never excusable. I have no expectation that the ZANU-PF hard-liners or the Zimbabwe military will change their ways. They are worried about losing their wealth and their ill-gotten gains.
I hope that we can give enough encouragement to men and women of good will, especially the younger generation who hope for a new Zimbabwe and all the millions of Zimbabweans who have left the country and live around the world. I understand that under the new constitution such people will, importantly, retain their citizenship, and be able to play their part in the new Zimbabwe, and we can help with that. We have to be very careful with the handling of the suspension of sanctions, because some sanctions have worked. It is nonsense to say that they have not—that is why there is such a push to get them lifted—but I accept that there might be some that could be suspended. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, however, that there are some people we cannot possibly take off the lists—indeed, there are one or two we might add.
I want to end by saying that I wish that everyone could read the amazing speech made by one of my Zimbabwean heroes, Roy Bennett, at Rhodes house in Oxford in May. Entitled “Smoke and Mirrors: another look at politics and ethnicity in Zimbabwe”, it was a wonderful speech, which put into around a dozen pages just what the future for Zimbabwe could be, and how we, as the British Government, can help.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to speak. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on bringing this matter, which is of interest to a great many people, to Westminster Hall. The right hon. Gentleman clearly outlined the case for Zimbabwe, and passionately spoke of the need for the British Government, Europe and the free democratic countries to be involved.
It is simply outrageous that some countries are intent on ensuring that blood diamonds are mined and then sold all over the world. Some such countries, as Members have already said, are China—in particular—Russia and the United Arab Emirates. Those countries and others turn a blind eye to where diamonds come from.
I want to focus on the funding through blood diamonds of Robert Mugabe’s election terror campaign, and how it will affect the future of Zimbabwe. Who is Zimbabwe’s main partner in mining blood diamonds? China. The shadow of China hangs ominously over many sections of Africa, but nowhere more than in Zimbabwe. Anjin Investments, a Chinese-led venture in Zimbabwe, has announced that it is the biggest diamond producer, with allegedly 3 million carats to sell. In return, that company is funding a new military college in Zimbabwe for Robert Mugabe. The much-feared Central Intelligence Organisation or CIO, Mugabe’s secret police force, is well known for torture, brutality and suppression of freedom and rights in Zimbabwe. The CIO is flush with cash.
At the last election, Mugabe’s coalition partner controlled finance and, through that, where money went within Zimbabwe. Now, with money coming from blood diamonds, things are changing, and edging much more towards the next election and Mugabe’s hopes for the future. Blood diamond money has purchased hundreds of new vehicles in the past few months and has rearmed the army with thousands of new weapons from China. Salaries have been increased, and thousands of new officers have been trained. We must ask why. Is it happening in advance of the election and constitution change later this year, and of future elections? Many suspect that it will be used to intimidate voters in the next election.
The key to the outcome of the next election lies with the problem of blood diamonds. Over the past nine years, the Kimberley process has failed to evolve or to address the clear links between diamonds, violence and tyranny. It has been said:
“The KP has failed to deal with the trade in conflict diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire, breaches of the rules by Venezuela and diamonds fuelling corruption and state-sponsored violence in Zimbabwe”
and
“has turned an international conflict prevention mechanism into a cynical corporate accreditation scheme.”
That sums up exactly where we are.
The EU represents 27 member states. What discussions have the British Government had to work with other EU countries to stop or control the trade in blood diamonds? It is not an issue for the British Government alone; it is also an EU issue. We need to ensure that we work with our partners.
It is alleged that dirty diamonds are being mixed with clean gems, which means that corruption is happening at the highest levels. It is further alleged that officers in the Zimbabwean army hold senior positions in the Anjin partnership mining venture. Anjin has an estimated stockpile of up to 3.6 million carats. Should anyone be in any doubt about the lengths to which Mugabe’s regime will go, the BBC has claimed in the past few days to have discovered a torture camp known as Diamond Base in one of the areas from which the EU wants to approve exports. Again, I suggest that the British Government and the EU need to work together strongly. Why approve something when evidence clearly indicates that torture, killings and brutality are taking place? We do not want those things to happen. I am sure that the Minister will respond positively.
I have had an interest in Zimbabwe—or Rhodesia, as I knew it then—from an early age. I have many friends who have lived and worked there, helping its economy and its people. That is why I am here to contribute to this debate. Ian Smith, former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, had a famous saying that many Members will remember:
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
I hope that Zimbabwe will have a free, democratic election and that Mugabe will be ousted, but I have some concerns, like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), that the elections will be changed by the barrel of a gun and money from blood diamonds. We must, I believe, burst the blister of blood diamonds. The British Government’s involvement is critical.
The Minister is well known for his compassion and his level-headed responses, and we hold him in great respect. I ask him to show us how the British Government, along with their EU partners, will ensure that the democratic process in Zimbabwe is free of violence and brutality, and that the people can decide on their future.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to make a short speech although I was late getting here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on securing this extremely important debate.
I have quite good experience of Zimbabwe, as I was an election observer in 2000. I have been banned by Mugabe from returning to the country, as I was critical of the regime. This debate is one of many that we have had here that are essential to put pressure on the Mugabe regime.
I have some simple points to make. ZANU-PF and the Mugabe regime need to pay for their army and their tyranny, which is why they need money. That is the blunt message that we need to convey in this debate. Blood diamonds are part of the criminal element that feeds into Government. I would go so far as to call it state-sponsored terrorism and violence. Blood diamonds feed a terrible regime that goes on destroying its people despite the so-called coalition Government in Zimbabwe.
The other point that I want to raise with the Minister is that I have a lot of experience of the European Parliament. Undoubtedly, a lot of countries in Europe with colonial backgrounds have links to different countries. It is therefore important not to take it for granted that all European countries will pull together on Zimbabwe. I ask him to speak to his counterparts in France, Belgium, Germany and all the other states of Europe with past links to Africa to ensure that we pull together to put as much pressure as possible on the regime, close down the trade in blood diamonds and bring about real democratic change. All of this is part and parcel of that. The EU has an important role to play. The diamonds are getting through in various ways, and the EU can do more to pull together. Thank you again, Mr Havard, for letting me speak.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. It has been a privilege to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in this extremely important debate, in which Members have shown their collective experience, knowledge and wisdom. The debate is useful in framing an important period for Zimbabwe. It gives us an opportunity to set some context for the important elections due to take place next year.
I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the issue we all understand. He brings with him the specific experience of having been a Minister for Africa and having been involved in the Kimberley process. We need to use this debate to consider, analyse and assess where the Kimberley process is. If we are to make progress in dealing not just with Zimbabwe but with Africa as a whole, the steps taken by the international community and international institutions to assess the income from the extractive industries in Africa will be a key part of belief in governance and politics in Africa going forward. It is important that we take that into consideration.
I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for his important observations on the importance of independence in judicial processes, which is still sadly lacking in Zimbabwe. He also made an important point about preparations for next year’s elections. Will the Minister reflect on the contribution that parliamentarians can make in observing elections in countries that are undertaking extremely important consultations on constitutional matters? There is an increasing tendency for parliamentarians to be excluded, ironically, from election observation missions. It is a sorry trend. There are a lot of missions. For example, I went to the Congo last year at a very important time for a very important election—the visit was funded by Christian Aid—and I think that I was the only Member of the House of Commons present, although I was joined by a colleague of mine from the House of Lords. It is important that the House of Commons considers the role of parliamentarians at important elections in countries such as Zimbabwe.
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, we have to be careful and think about the context of our relations with Zimbabwe, the way in which the United Kingdom is perceived there, and our connections and imperial past. That is never an excuse for bad behaviour, but, as I will say later, we need to operate from the perspective of principle and ask what the right thing to do is in dealing with the elections. We must try to avoid the lazy accusation that is so often made against the United Kingdom whereby our actions are perceived through the prism of our imperialist past by some in Zimbabwe, particularly the Zimbabwean Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made an excellent contribution, as I would expect. I promise to read Roy Bennett’s speech, and I am sure that she will give me full details of it following the debate. An overall assessment of the position in Zimbabwe is desperately needed. We have made some progress. Obviously, the involvement of Mr Tsvangirai in government has mitigated some of the dreadful things that were happening earlier in the decade, but it is clearly the case—much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has said explains why—that some individuals in Zimbabwe are extracting vast wealth and they are using it for their own personal interest. That explains their desperate efforts to retain power and I take on board the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about them ever giving it up. We have to do all we can to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered so much in recent years, and who still suffer, have the opportunity at the ballot box to elect a Government who truly represent their interests, and not the partial and corrupt interests of many of those people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred.
We have also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made the important point that this is not just a matter for the British Government. Obviously, we operate at a European level through the European Union’s institutions, but this process can lead to a positive result only if the international community works together. Institutions need to be developed that can effectively monitor the way in which international trade is conducted and that can ensure that the proceeds of the huge wealth under discussion are used for the benefit of the Zimbabwean people.
On that wealth, transparency in the extractive industries will be key both to effective governance throughout many states in Africa and to dealing with the curse of corruption, which still afflicts so many countries in Africa. We have focused on Zimbabwe and the diamond industry, but the principles of openness and accountability are essential if we are to build credibility and belief in politics in Africa.
Today is an important opportunity for us to reiterate our support for and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe, following the country’s tragic recent history, and to recognise the bravery of so many of the Zimbabwean people who have stood up to state-sponsored violence and intimidation over so many years. We as the United Kingdom have a responsibility to promote peace and democracy in Zimbabwe, and successive British Governments have been guided by the principle of how best to make it possible for the people of Zimbabwe to decide on the future of their own country. Of course, our own relationship has been perceived through the prism of our historic role, but it is important that our present policy is based on principles of openness and accountability and that it should be seen as such by the Government of Zimbabwe.
To set that relationship in context, the previous Labour Government increased aid to Zimbabwe to £67 million in 2009-10, and I am pleased that the present Government have maintained their own commitment to bilateral support. We want to do all we can to support the people of Zimbabwe, and our own constituents also feel strongly about the issue. The Government of Zimbabwe should recognise that. Our commitment is an historical one and it should continue.
It is extremely important that we pay tribute to the valuable work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, including Global Witness, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred, the Open Society Foundations, and the British Trades Union Congress Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the anti-apartheid movement. They have all informed and contributed to the debate.
I note that Members from all parties have started questioning the credibility of the Kimberley process. The evidence produced by my right hon. Friend is extremely important and deeply worrying. What is the UK Government’s present assessment of the credibility of the Kimberley process? Do they think that enough is being done to regulate the diamond industry fully and properly, both generally and specifically in relation to Zimbabwe? We have agreed during this debate that the issues are of international importance and that they need to be dealt with on an international basis. In order to achieve an effective international process, we must have belief in the processes that we have set up. My right hon. Friend has raised some real concerns, and unless they are addressed, it will be difficult to retain the trust required in the process to enable us to participate effectively.
This debate is timely, because just a few weeks ago a group of western ambassadors visited two high-security mining fields in Zimbabwe—the Chinese-owned Anjin and Marange resources. The group was headed by the EU ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo Dell’Ariccia; the first visit was by foreign diplomats. The Minister will know that, since the EU ambassador’s return, he has spoken about his doubts about the transparency of the operations. What discussions have the UK Government had with the EU ambassadors who visited the fields, and what were the outcomes of the recent visit?
We have also heard of Members’ concerns about enforcement. Critics believe that the Kimberley process appears to be applying enforcement only to crimes committed by rebel groups, but not to human rights abuses committed by Governments such as Zimbabwe’s. The Kimberley process took the decision in November 2011 to lift a ban on the sale of diamonds from the Marange fields in Zimbabwe. We have heard the evidence today; it is deeply disturbing and specific in content, and without a response to those allegations it is difficult to extend further support and confidence to the Kimberley process. What representations have the Government made to those supervising the Kimberley process on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields?
As I have said, transparency is crucial in all extraction mining activities, including the diamond sector. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath set out, the Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, runs the Ministries of Finance, of Education, Sport and Culture, and of Health and Child Welfare, while Mugabe’s ZANU-PF retains other Ministries, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development. The Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, reports that the Treasury is yet to receive money from the owned Anjin and Marange diamond reserves, and a crucial and simple question must be addressed: where is the money going?
It is essential that funds from diamond reserves go directly to the Treasury of Zimbabwe so that it can support the people of that country and their specific needs. As we have heard, life expectancy remains low, but the Zimbabwean Government are slowly rebuilding the education and health infrastructure. We—the British taxpayer—are trying to help with that process, but we must know and understand that the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth will be spent on Zimbabwe’s real needs: doctors, nurses and teachers.
In a bilateral aid review by the Department for International Development for 2011-12, the Government rightly focused on the UK’s commitment to improving health and education for the people of Zimbabwe, including maternal and child health, water and sanitation. We cannot, however, countenance a situation in which the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth are used for the personal aggrandisement of politicians, or the corrupting or influencing of elections. It has been widely speculated that money is being diverted from the progress that we all want to see, and used instead to supplement and support President Mugabe’s security forces. None of us wants a repeat of the horror and bloodshed that took place in the run-up to the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, when ZANU-PF supporters and secret policemen killed and tortured hundreds of people. There are reports that Mugabe’s regime has already used diamond money to buy weapons and invest in training to intimidate voters in the elections. Less than a year before Zimbabwe’s next election, can we be confident that diamond assets will not go towards funding ZANU-PF electoral violence?
I look forward to hearing the Minister reiterate the UK’s support for the reform of security forces in Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to preventing ZANU-PF violence and intimidation in the run-up to elections. What discussions have the UK Government had with the Southern Africa Development Community and the African Union to push the issue of security sector reform?
I hope that the Government are working with the international community to ensure the strong presence of electoral observers—including parliamentary observers—both prior to and during the elections in Zimbabwe next year. Reports suggest that the EU is considering removing or suspending some of the targeted sanctions. What discussions have the Minister or his colleagues had with the EU on that issue, and what is the position of the UK in those discussions?
We all know that Zimbabwe has great potential, not only because of its courageous people but because of its past agricultural productivity, resources and the region’s natural advantages. Given our strong historical ties, the UK has a responsibility to do all it can to help to ensure that Zimbabwe becomes a prosperous, stable country. That includes ensuring that the diamond process is transparent, that funds reach the Treasury and that the population benefits. It is our responsibility to exert as much pressure as we can to achieve that end, and I hope that the Minister’s comments will reaffirm that collective goal.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
I apologise. I should have struck that name off.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I will begin by thanking you, Mr Havard, for chairing the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also apologise for the obvious absence of the Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, he is currently travelling on the continent, although I know that he has taken a keen interest in this debate. He has followed this issue closely over recent months, and I suspect that he has been in contact with most of the Members present today. He will be interested to read the text of the debate, and he helped me considerably with compiling a response.
I also thank the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for initiating the debate. His background in this issue, his courage over the years in dealing with the issues that lie behind this debate, not only in Zimbabwe but in South Africa, and his knowledge of the area and work as a Minister, have been exemplary. I appreciate his comments and I will reflect on them as the debate progresses. I share the comments made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about other hon. Members who have made significant contributions to the debate and expressed their various points of view and knowledge.
I would like to highlight the work of Global Witness and the contribution that it has made with the publication of its report and the various other issues with which it is involved. I commend it for its unrelenting efforts to keep the spotlight firmly on Marange diamonds, and stress how much the Government share its concerns. The issues raised today are of considerable importance for the future of Zimbabwe and the prospects for free and fair elections in that country, and it is therefore important that we approach the debate in that context.
Since the formation of the inclusive Government, the situation in Zimbabwe has grown increasingly complex. We should no longer view Zimbabwe solely through the lens of Mugabe’s continued grip on power, although we must not be naive in assessing prospects for the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members have been keen to press that point, and I assure the Chamber that the Government are in no way being naive when assessing the current situation of the Zimbabwean Government. For each reform made, another appears to be ignored. Instances of human rights abuses continue to decline, but low-level intimidation and harassment continue. The visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was an important step forward, but the day after her departure an MDC activist was brutally killed as a result of political violence.
Therefore, before I address in detail the issue of Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the relevant EU measures, I would be grateful for a few minutes in which to set out the broader picture as viewed by the Government. First, as has been noted in previous debates, we must acknowledge the fundamental progress that has been made in Zimbabwe since the formation of the inclusive Government in 2009, and particularly the impressive and vital turnaround of the Zimbabwean economy. It is fair to say that the pace of political progress has been slower than economic progress, but there have been steps forward, particularly within the last six months. Two key pieces of legislation—the Human Rights Commission Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill—are about to pass through Parliament. Those important steps demonstrate that the global political agreement is not yet dead.
Even more important is the progress that has been made in the constitutional process, and we understand that negotiators from all parties have agreed a final draft that will soon be submitted to principals for approval. Once agreed, a second all-stakeholders conference should follow before the constitutional referendum takes place, and that is expected before the end of the year. Understandably, there are critics of the process, and particularly of the violence associated with the early stages of outreach. None the less, it represents a significant achievement and an important step towards the elections that we expect to see next year.
It is also important to recognise the ongoing efforts of President Zuma and his partners in the Southern African Development Community—a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). At the Luanda summit on 1 June, SADC again confirmed that elections cannot take place until necessary reforms have been completed. We continue to support SADC in its role as guarantor of the global political agreement, and applaud its efforts to work with all parties to keep the reform process moving forward.
The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue of freedom and fairness, and of elections and the importance of electoral monitoring including parliamentarians. I strongly support him on that. I was an election observer in South Africa in 1999, for the second elections there. Parliamentarians have an immense contribution to make, and it is increasingly important that they have, and take, the opportunity. We look with some concern at attempts to make it more difficult for parliamentarians to take part, so it is important to keep that process moving forward. More than one hon. Member said that South Africa had to take its responsibilities seriously and ensure that what everyone is talking about—a freer and fairer election process—actually happens on the ground. That will be the acid test of whether those currently in power in Zimbabwe recognise the democratic right of a people to change their Government as and when they wish, and to ensure that the process is there for that to be a possibility.
Such a commitment is vital, despite progress, as there is a long road to travel and a closing window of opportunity. High Commissioner Pillay identified many unresolved issues following her recent visit—in particular, the risk posed by some partisan elements in Zimbabwe’s security sector. We share her concerns that
“unless the parties agree quickly on some key major reforms and there is a distinct shift in attitude, the next election…could turn into a repeat of…2008”.
That continues to be the unfortunate, underlying reality of the situation in Zimbabwe. I hope that that note of caution is recognised by the Chamber. We very much understand that reforms are not irreversible. Everything has to be watched very carefully, despite the progress that has been made.
That leads me back to the central issue that is being debated today: the question of Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the influence they will have on the coming elections. The concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman are shared by the Government. As he is aware, there have been some positive developments. The most recent reports by civil society confirm that human rights abuses in Marange have decreased significantly since their peak in 2008, and we welcome that. However, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns that revenue from Marange diamonds is being used to build an infrastructure of violence and intimidation in the run-up to elections. It is clear that revenue from diamonds is being siphoned off, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Finance Minister Biti reported a shortfall of $92 million of revenue in the first quarter of 2012.
The question of governance and transparency in diamond revenue flows therefore remains genuinely difficult to answer. It is clear that although there is still an important role for the international community—of course, we have discussed this with partners—solutions will have to be found inside Zimbabwe in light of lack of international unity. We have raised concerns about the handling of diamond finance with the British Virgin Islands. We will continue to work with international partners to support Zimbabwe, but our focus is increasingly on helping to improve conditions for effective regulation of the industry. We are, therefore, supporting initiatives by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the mining sector. We will also bring the new Global Witness report allegations on Anjin to the attention of the Chinese.
The challenge in achieving international unity was illustrated by the difficulties faced by the Kimberley process in dealing with the situation in Marange. Despite being unable directly to address human rights violations owing to its narrow mandate, the Kimberley process managed to impose a near total ban on Marange diamond exports from 2009 to 2011. The agreement reached at Kinshasa last November, to allow restricted exports, is robust but fair. It allows Zimbabwe only to export diamonds from the Marange region that comply with Kimberley process standards. It established a credible independent monitoring mechanism to ensure those standards are respected, including a role for civil society—something hon. Members from all parts of House have supported the fight to achieve. However, as is well known to hon. Members, the remit of the Kimberley process only allows it to take action to tackle
“rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments”.
It is unable directly to address the issue of revenue flows from the sale of diamonds in Zimbabwe, although it has played a helpful role in increasing transparency over production and export data from Zimbabwe.
In answer to the questions from the right hon. Member for Neath and others, I confirm that the UK would like to see the Kimberley Process’s mandate expanded to enable it to take human rights more explicitly into consideration. We have negotiated a strong EU position— the hon. Member for Strangford was keen to know what we had been doing with EU members, and their responsibility—that reflects our sense that the mandate of the process must be widened, and we are encouraging other Kimberley process participants to support that position.
Mr Hain
I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated that the Government will seek to broaden the remit of the Kimberley process on rough diamonds. However, despite a welcome indication that he will raise the question of Anjin with the Chinese Government, he has not said yet whether Anjin, Sam Pa and the Sino-Zimbabwe development will be put on the EU sanctions list when the British Government go to the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday.
Alistair Burt
May I address that point a little later in my remarks? The right hon. Gentleman anticipates where I am going.
While in principle we welcome the development of a supplement on diamonds to the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, we do not believe that this is the right time to launch such a process, given the risk of undermining ongoing efforts to reform the Kimberley process. An OECD-led process would also be effective only if the diamond industry and diamond producing states agreed to participate, and therefore significant further consultations would be needed before any such process could begin.
That leads me on to the important and live question of the EU’s targeted measures on Zimbabwe. As all are aware, those measures are under discussion in Brussels. In answer to the questions from hon. Members, let me set out our aim. We want to support the process towards a credible referendum ahead of free and fair elections in 2013. In doing so, we need to encourage progress and incentivise reform, which is why we need to use the measures in the right way to effect a change in behaviour. Therefore, we, and our EU partners, are looking at what options exist to best respond to the clear calls from reformers, including the Movement for Democratic Change, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and President Zuma and SADC, for the EU to show flexibility to support the reform process.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, because she put it correctly when she spoke of mixed feelings about how to proceed, and of the uncertainty. I do not think it would be any surprise to indicate that that is exactly where we all are. It is difficult to get the balance right. However, we believe the best way to support progress is through a shift in the EU approach. We have, therefore, proposed to partners that, if there is a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum, the EU should respond accordingly with a suspension of the ban on direct EU development aid and a suspension of the asset freeze and travel ban on all but a small core of individuals around President Mugabe, particularly those who will have most influence on the potential for violence in the next election. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no prospect of any suspension being applied to President Mugabe himself. The process will demonstrate to reformers across the political spectrum that the EU is serious about responding to concrete progress on the ground, and reflects our confidence in the facilitation process being undertaken by President Zuma and the leaders of SADC. It also puts the onus on to the Zimbabwe Government to live up to their commitments. If the situation deteriorates, we can, of course, respond appropriately.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, all EU partners need to agree a shift in approach, and discussions are ongoing. Alternative approaches have also been suggested, including steps the EU could take in advance of a constitutional referendum.
Within that broad approach, the question of diamonds is particularly acute. We are grateful to Global Witness for its continued effort to shine a light on evidence, and to the right hon. Gentleman for the evidence he set out today. We have listened carefully, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do so, too. The militarisation of diamond finance is an issue that has a direct impact on the prospects for free and fair elections, and we are acutely aware of that risk. We are looking very carefully at the evidence and we will share it with partners. Although the dynamic we seek is one of responding to progress, where there is strong evidence we will of course take it seriously and encourage the addition of further names, but hon. Members will understand if I do not go into detail. Ultimately, this decision will be taken by all 27 member states in unanimity, based on the legal arguments.
We have had a very important debate, the consequences of which are long lasting. I hope I have done something to indicate the general approach of the Government, to recognise the evidence raised, and to give an assurance that evidence is taken into account in our discussion with all our partners. We know this is a complex area. We want to see progress and we hope that the deliberations of the Chamber and our own considerations will help that progress to move forward without any suspicion of naivety in our approach to the Government of Zimbabwe.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
I apologise for my senior moment earlier, Mr Burt, and I thank you for the quality of your responses. We now move to the next debate.
Stop and Search (Metropolitan Police)
(11 years, 9 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
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about the use of stop-and-search by the Metropolitan police. I should like to declare an interest, although it is not the normal type of interest that Members of Parliament declare in the House. I am a white 37-year-old woman. I have never been stopped by the police. My contact with them has only ever been polite, professional and reassuring. On the whole, I think they do a difficult job very well. Although I suspect those sentiments are shared by the majority of my constituents, I know they are not shared by all of them. That is why I called for this debate.
When I became an MP two years ago, I had limited knowledge of stop-and-search as a policing tool. I knew that the police had the power to stop people whom they suspected of wrongdoing and to search them for weapons and drugs. I knew that on occasions the police could issue a blanket provision in an area for a specified period, which would enable officers to stop individuals, even without reasonable suspicion, if serious violence was anticipated or had just happened. I also knew that under terrorism legislation the police could stop and search individuals who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts.
What I did not know when I became an MP, but do know now, is how often stop-and-search is used by the police in certain parts of London and how young black and Asian men in particular are disproportionately affected. I had not appreciated the damage that can be done to individuals, families and communities when that policing tool is used inappropriately and to excess. I also know now that only one in 10 stop-and-searches in London results in an arrest.
In my two years as an MP, I have had my eyes opened. Mums have attended my surgeries in tears about the way in which their sons have been treated by the police. I have met young men and boys who tell me that they have been stopped by the police and been treated roughly and rudely and that they have felt embarrassed, humiliated and targeted. To be fair, I have met others who have also been stopped and searched who tell me that, although it was not a nice experience, they thought that the police did a reasonable job and that they did not have any complaints.
The Government and the Metropolitan police need to go further and faster to improve the way that stop-and-search is used. As it is used at the moment, it can be counter-productive and can create tension and mistrust between the police and the communities that they serve and protect. I want to be assured that, at the highest level, the Government and the police understand the resentment that has built up over a number of years among some individuals in certain sections of the population who feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. Although the power to stop and search is important and must remain, the number of occasions on which stop-and-search is used in London should be reduced. Section 60 notices—the blanket provisions that I have mentioned—must be used less frequently and cover smaller areas.
Of all stop-and-searches carried out under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, 89% are in the Metropolitan police area. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of those searches nationally went from 44,659 to 118,112. Within that figure, the number of black people stopped increased by 303%, from about 9,000 to nearly 39,000, and the number of Asian people stopped increased by 399%. Although that type of stop-and-search is now thankfully on the decline, with a 49% drop in the past year, it lies behind the resentment and anger that have grown in some communities in London. It is the backdrop to a situation that was reflected in the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission last month, which showed that if you are black you are 37 times more likely to be stopped under a section 60 notice than if you are white.
Getting a grip on section 60 notices and limiting the instances in which they are used is one action point identified by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his plan to improve the effectiveness of stop-and-search. I welcome that move and urge him, and the Government, to monitor closely boroughs in London with the highest authorisations historically, especially where those authorisations cover whole boroughs, as opposed to specific localities.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. A hallmark of a free society is that all citizens are able to walk freely around without undue expectation of being stopped. She correctly observes that the statistics between boroughs are variable. Is she puzzled, as I am, about why, out of all the stop-and-searches under the Terrorism Act 2000, none resulted in arrests for terrorism offences and fewer than 1% for other offences? It is not just disproportionality between boroughs and in the total amount that ought to be a consideration for the Minister; he should also consider the effectiveness of stop-and-search in stopping crime.
Heidi Alexander
I share the hon. Gentleman’s puzzlement about those facts. Although I do not plan to speak a lot about the effectiveness of stop-and-search as a policing tool in the short time available today, the Metropolitan police and the Government need to consider that in terms of the number of arrests. It could be argued—the hon. Gentleman has made this point in previous debates—that police time is being wasted in some respects and would be better spent focusing on other areas.
It is critical that people understand that there is a clear reason for the stop, and the manner in which the stop-and-search is carried out is also important. The problem with the section 60 stops is that they seem to be underpinned by a generic rationale and expectation that there will be or has been trouble. That serves to label certain individuals and groups, even if it is not the intention.
An excessive use of section 60 notices has exacerbated police-community tensions in London. Other issues must also be addressed. Young people in particular need to better understand their rights and, to put it bluntly, more complaints need to be made when stop-and-search is carried out badly. When complaints are justified and found to be fair, they must lead to changes in police practice.
I often ask young men who express their concern to me about stop-and-search whether they have ever made a complaint. The answer is a universal no, even when they feel that they have been treated disrespectfully. There is often a lack of trust in the system and a fear that, if they complain, it will just make matters worse. That is true for the families of the individuals being stopped as much as for the individuals themselves. In fact, during my advice surgery in Catford this Saturday, that point was made to me by a mum of a young man who had been repeatedly stopped. Some parents—particularly without English as their first language—lack the basic understanding of what is acceptable and not acceptable and how to make a complaint. A way around that has to be found. If complaints are not made and individual officers are not disciplined because bad practice is not identified and dealt with, how will progress ever be made?
I mentioned the mum I spoke to on Saturday, and I will tell the Chamber a bit more about her family’s experiences. As I said, her 16-year-old son has been stopped repeatedly by the police. I asked her how many times and she said that she had lost count. Her son has severe special needs and earlier this year he was charged with resisting arrest following a stop-and-search. On Friday last week, the courts found him not guilty of the charge, but the judge in summing up referred to the excessive police force used against him.
The effect of perpetual but arguably unwarranted police attention on that young man cannot be overstated. His mum believes that the reason he is now being treated by Lewisham’s child and adolescent mental health services is that his self-esteem has been damaged so badly by the police approach towards him. In a follow-up e-mail to me on Sunday, she said:
“I feel that the police should have a greater understanding of our young people with SEN needs. My son has had an educational statement since he was 8 years old. This means that since this age it has been acknowledged he has complex needs, yet when I told Lewisham police station that he was under CAMHS they had no idea what I was talking about. The police are taking statements from young men without any idea of their mental or educational disabilities.”
That is not the only case of that sort that has been brought to my attention in the past year. Other mums have talked to me about how their sons have felt targeted by the police, how their sons’ attitude towards the police has changed and, in some cases, how their sons’ behaviour has also changed. I appreciate that in some cases the practice of poor police stop-and-search may not be the only factor contributing to their sons’ behaviour change, but I have heard it from enough parents to believe that we must address the issue.
Better training of police officers in the practice of stop-and-search is vital if people’s experience of it is to improve. In Lewisham, we are lucky to have Second Wave, a local community group based in the borough, which has done excellent work to help the local police and the territorial support groups to understand the perspectives of the young people who are on the other end of that policing tool. Second Wave also goes into schools to enable young people to understand the perspective of the police. That sort of approach should be universal throughout the Metropolitan police area. We are also fortunate in Lewisham to have, as part of our police community consultative group, an active stop-and-search group, which is concerned by suggestions that such groups might be abolished and is adamant that the police must be more and not less transparent and accountable in how they use stop-and-search. I agree.
I am conscious that the Government and the Metropolitan police realise that stop-and-search is an issue. Indeed, the report earlier this year from the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel noted that police stop-and-search practices were one of the factors behind last year’s riots. The Government have their review of best practice, and the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner has set out a number of areas in which he would like to see improvement, but looking at best practice is one thing, and being honest about bad practice is another—both must happen if everyone is to have faith in the system.
We also need a means by which to measure progress against the laudable aims set out by the police commissioner in London. Perhaps the Minister can say what he sees success and failure looking like in London. What specific changes would he like to see in the practice of stop-and-search in our capital city, and over what time frame?
Stop-and-search is an important police power. If we are to tackle the serious problems of gun and knife crime, there will be occasions on which the police have to be able to perform a stop-and-search. At the moment, however, young people in my constituency feel “over-policed and under-protected”, as the Home Affairs Committee said a few years ago. That has to change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments today on how he plans to achieve that.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing the debate. The subject is of great interest to many people and communities, in London and elsewhere, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
Stop-and-search is an important area of operational policing policy and I recognise that, despite many improvements in how stop-and-search is carried out and recorded, its use continues to be a source of tension and concern in some communities and, in particular, among those of black and minority ethnic origin. The Government and the Metropolitan Police Service are clear that stop-and-search is a vital part of a police officer’s toolkit in deterring and combating crime and antisocial behaviour, especially knife crime, which is of particular public concern. It is, however, unacceptable that individuals might be targeted because of their race.
Stop-and-search is an important tool for the police but, in order to maintain the British model of policing by consent, which is so important, it is essential that the powers are used fairly and with the support of communities to protect the public. The uninformed use of stop-and-search, without the proper use of intelligence and the briefing of front-line officers, is likely to be unproductive in terms of identifying those carrying weapons and counter-productive in terms of community confidence. I agreed with what the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said about the importance of ensuring that any disposals such as this that are used by the police are used in a way that ultimately succeeds in reducing crime—in reducing crime, it is important that public confidence in the actions of the police is maintained. The benefits of stop-and-search need to be carefully weighed against any negative impact on the confidence in the police service by the community and, in particular, by those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
In general, stop-and-search powers are used in a proportionate and appropriate way in most cases, but their use needs to be improved by some forces. That is why in December last year the Home Secretary asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to look at best practice on stop-and-search. ACPO has submitted its report to the Home Secretary, which I am keen to see published so that forces may take advantage of the learning in it. The report is an important reminder that there are excellent examples of effective practice in the use of stop-and-search. ACPO is considering arrangements for publication.
The Metropolitan Police Service is the largest user of stop-and-search, and the new Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are aware of the impact on community trust and confidence of stop-and-search, which is why this January they announced a radical programme, “Stop It”, to improve the effectiveness of stop-and-search. The programme has led to a significant change in the way that the Metropolitan police use stop-and-search powers. I noted that the hon. Lady herself referred to the action that the leadership of the Metropolitan police is taking and it is welcome.
The “Stop It” programme focuses on three main areas in relation to the use of the powers: trust and confidence; effectiveness; and the protection of communities from violent crime. The aim is to renew the focus on reducing violence and for the power to be used in a more intelligence-led and targeted way, reducing the numbers of searches, leading to more arrests and more weapons seized and improving the standard of the encounter between the police and the public.
I want to come back to the “Stop It” initiative shortly, but I first want to address the issues that have been raised, including previously by the hon. Lady, about the blanket use of stop-and-search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is sometimes referred to as a “no suspicion” power. There are appropriate safeguards in the authorisation process for a section 60 order and the authorisation is rightly limited in its scope. I am pleased to learn that in the Roberts case the High Court has just found that the powers under section 60 are lawful. The Court stated that, while nothing in the legislation is racially discriminatory, the question of whether the legislation is being used in a racially discriminatory way is important.
Section 60 enables a police officer of at least inspector rank to authorise officers to stop individuals to search them for knives and other offensive weapons. The officers making the stops do not need to have individual suspicion that the person they are stopping is carrying a weapon. The authorisation, once granted for a period of up to 24 hours, can be extended only for a further 24 hours if authorised by an officer of at least superintendent rank.
The hon. Lady will be interested to note that the Met, under its “Stop It” programme, is aiming to reduce the overall number of authorisations under section 60 and to increase the intelligence threshold required to authorise pre-planned section 60 orders. The latest statistics on police powers and procedures demonstrate considerable progress, showing that the use of section 60 stop-and-search by the Met fell by 41% between 2009-10 and 2010-11. As “Stop It” rolls out, we expect the use of stop-and-search to drop further still.
That general approach of the more targeted use of stop-and-search by the Met will also continue during the Olympics, and I can confirm that there are no plans for blanket section 60 orders to be in place in particular areas. It remains an important policing tactic and a deterrent to crime, and will be used when appropriate, but based on the crime and intelligence picture at the time.
The hon. Lady’s borough of Lewisham has been at the forefront of stop-and-search work for some time, particularly in relation to the level of community engagement. She may know that in November 2010, a National Policing Improvement Agency-led initiative, “Next Steps”, was piloted in Lewisham. The purpose of that work was to improve community confidence in the use of stop-and-search. Evaluation of the work found that community satisfaction rates had improved, and that community groups were effective in their monitoring of stop-and-search.
One element of “Next Steps” was the briefing process, based on situation, background, assessment and recommendations, given to task officers to carry out stop-and-search based directly on intelligence. That element has now been adopted within the “Stop It” initiative. When the initiative commenced this year, some key performance indicators were set by the Met. They included improving the positive outcome rate to 20%, reducing the volume of negative drugs searches by 50%, increasing the proportion of weapon searches to 20%, and a 50% reduction in pre-planned section 60 authorities. The Met is aiming to achieve those targets by the end of March 2013.
The hon. Lady asked what specific steps I would like to be taken to ensure demonstrable progress. I have described the general reduction in the number of stop-and-search occurrences, and I hope that it is helpful for her to know that the Met has set itself indicators that it aims to achieve.
The progress made in relation to the “Stop It” initiative is reported to the Police Public Encounters Board, which is chaired by the ACPO lead for the stop-and-search initiative, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Met, Craig Mackey. Current performance shows that the positive outcome rate, which consists of arrests and cannabis warnings or penalty notices for disorder, is 17.3% for June 2012. That is a significant improvement on the rate in January 2011, which was 10.6%. The total number of pre-planned section 60 authorities for the Met for June 2012 was just six, a significant reduction on June last year where there were 103 authorities.
The Met is committed to ensuring “Stop It” will continue beyond this period as a routine part of policing to achieve the highest levels of trust and confidence in the use of Stop-and-search as a tactic for keeping our streets safe. Effective community monitoring remains at the heart of that work, and provides an opportunity to have an accountable process for delivering on confidence and satisfaction. Local monitoring will take place through the community monitoring groups, which are provided with the most up-to-date performance data for their respective areas and a process to hold senior officers to account.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful for the information about the reduction in stop-and-search that the Met has achieved. I do not want to drag the Minister too far away from the specifics of the metropolitan area, but will he comment on the impact that elected police and crime commissioners may have in enhancing accountability to local communities in their sensitivities to stop-and-search?
Nick Herbert
I know of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this policy area. Elected police and crime commissioners will be responsible for holding the police to account in their force area, and in turn will be accountable to the public. Their responsibility is to secure efficient and effective policing, but they will need to be aware that to do that and to drive down crime—I have no doubt every candidate seeking election on 15 November will aim to do that—they must maintain the confidence of communities in their local police service. They will need to be alive to the importance of effective programmes to build community confidence in the way that the police service is policing the streets, and the use of stop-and-search powers and so on, but also in terms of the ambition that we should collectively have to ensure that the police service is reflective in its make-up of society today and that we continue to make progress. That has been important but not sufficient in relation to the proportion of officers from black, minority and ethnic communities, both in the nature of policing and how it is conducted, and in the make-up of the police service as a whole, and the wider interactions that the police service has with the community. Police and crime commissioners will want to be alive to all those issues, because they all relate directly to the force’s ability to reduce crime. They are not nice-to-do things or add-on things; they are important in themselves.
Heidi Alexander
Before taking that intervention, the Minister was talking about the “Stop It” action plan, and the progress that he and the Commissioner want to see by March 2013. Six months have already passed since the action plan was launched in January this year, and I wonder what progress report he has received on the specific indicators, other than section 60 stops. Can he update us on the progress that has been made so far?
Nick Herbert
I provided the hon. Lady with some of the updated information to last month about the number of stop-and-searches. First and foremost, the Met is held to account locally by the Mayor, and that is important. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient and effective policing. Of course we take an overall interest in policing, but it is for the Mayor to exercise that scrutiny, and to account to Londoners for that.
Notifying people that they are in an area where searches may take place is also being taken forward in the Met. That provides a number of benefits, including providing reassurance, acting as a preventive measure, and sending a clear message to those intent on carrying weapons that the police will seek them out and arrest them. The Met is currently using and expanding its use of a number of methods of communication, including leaflets, signs, text messaging, e-mail, Twitter, and other social networks.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting the police to improve the use of stop-and-search. However, individual police forces know their own communities better than Whitehall does. Increasingly, they will be answerable to their local communities in the use of police tactics such as stop-and-search. In London, that will be through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford noted, in the rest of England and Wales, through elected police and crime commissioners from November 2012. Furthermore, we announced in December our intention to introduce a new professional policing body that will develop skills and leadership, and improve policing standards. I expect that body to take the closest interest in this policy area. Yesterday, we updated the House on the very good progress on the formation of that body by the end of the year. It will be known as the College of Policing, and I am pleased that ACPO, the Police Superintendents’ Association and others are supporting it. It will be a service-led body to ensure that we are promoting high standards in policing.
I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some assurance that both the Government and the senior leadership of the Metropolitan police takes this issue very seriously, and are committed to reducing any undue disproportionality, improving the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of stop-and-search powers, and enhancing public confidence in their use.
High Speed 2 (Heathrow)
(11 years, 9 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
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is present. I am sure that she has lots of better things to do on an afternoon such as this, and it is a great pleasure to have her and other colleagues, all of whom are friends, in the debate.
There have been a number of Government announcements about rail investment over the past few days, so today’s debate is most timely. Let me state from the outset that I stand fully behind the Government’s proposed investments in our rail and high-speed rail networks. In order to allow our economy to compete with its European and global counterparts, it is vital that we have a truly world-class infrastructure.
I shall begin my remarks by discussing briefly the issue of western access to Heathrow—a matter of interest to my constituents in the Cotswolds—and I will then discuss the connectivity, or lack of, between High Speed 2 and Heathrow. It is, of course, possible for my constituents, and others in the west and south-west, to reach Heathrow by rail, but the requirement to change trains acts as a huge disincentive so people travel by road instead. For example, of the 650,000 passenger journeys from Oxford to Heathrow each year, an overwhelming number—98.9%—take place by road, rather than by rail. It is therefore important that all necessary steps are taken to encourage more people from the west of the country to access Heathrow by rail.
The creation of a spur from Reading to Heathrow will benefit those in the immediate vicinities of Reading and Slough, but for those further afield, at least one change of trains will be required. In addition to the Reading link, the creation of a new Heathrow station and a new hub with fast transport links to the main airport would provide a direct rail link to Heathrow for people in the west, south-west and Wales. Such a hub would act as a gateway to the airport, with connections by road as well as rail. A significant amount of the check-in and logistical facilities could be hosted at the new hub, allowing a complete transformation of the terminal structure at Heathrow airport. That would allow a far more efficient airport structure, with significant benefits for passengers and freight services—that is vital given that Heathrow is responsible for handling over half of the UK’s total air freight.
Given that we are in the process of electrifying the Great Western main line, we have a huge opportunity to create a fantastic rail and aviation link between the east and west of the country, with potentially huge benefits for people and businesses in the west, south-west and Wales. In my view, that goes hand in hand with the construction of HS2, which is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for intervening so early, but I may have to go to the other Chamber for a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman explain where he thinks such a hub would be located? What are his views on the best options for the hub’s location?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I will explain, but it was not my purpose to favour any one particular commercial option in this speech. A site is available within the vicinity of the interchange of the M25 and the M4, and there may well be others. It is a significant site of about 500 acres of largely disused land, so a possibility is available.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I believe it is.
As I was saying, HS2 is the most costly single project ever envisaged by the Government, and will probably require more than the £34 billion often quoted. That figure is based largely on the assumption that 70% of HS2 users will be leisure passengers, and that seems a somewhat optimistic projection of income given that those people are price sensitive rather than time sensitive. To provide the House with a comparison, £34 billion compares with the £25 billion cost of the Trident replacement, and with the £17 billion for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and aircraft. HS2 is, therefore, a massive capital infrastructure project.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talked about HS2 being phenomenally expensive, and he has mentioned that a number of assumptions have been made. Does he believe that it would be important and useful to have an independent review of HS2 and its usefulness to the economy?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
In light of what I am about to say about the alternative hub possibility, it may be that some form of review of the whole HS2 route would be a good idea. Perhaps my hon. Friend’s concerns and my suggestions could be incorporated into one study.
In this Parliament alone we will be spending £750 million on HS2 before a spade enters the ground, with £529 million to be spent between 2012 and 2015, according to answers to my written parliamentary questions Nos. 106148 and 106541. With the greatest humility, I say to the Minister that it is vital that we get the scheme right. It is no good commencing works only to realise at a later date that we could have done something better, because by that point it will be too late to change course. The UK has lagged behind our European counterparts in the construction of a high-speed rail project, but that presents us with an opportunity to take on board what has worked previously, and learn from mistakes made in other countries. There appears to be a lack of a strategic link between our aviation and rail policies. Indeed, as the Transport Committee in its recent report on high-speed rail stated:
“The development of what could emerge as separate strategies for rail and aviation again highlights the absence of an overall transport strategy: this is a lacuna which must be filled.”
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the relationship between aviation and rail, does he think that by the time the project is actually completed, there may well be a totally different set of circumstances as far as air transport is concerned?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I anticipated that sort of intervention, and perhaps I will cover the hon. Gentleman’s point in my speech. If I do not, I will be happy to give way to him later in the debate.
We need only look at the Netherlands, Germany and France, and at airports such as Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle, to see the routeing of new high-speed lines via hub airports to create a direct interchange between air, high-speed rail, and the existing classic rail network. The purpose of linking Heathrow and HS2 is to provide an integrated rail and aviation system that would release scarce airport capacity by shifting short-haul flights to rail.
The current proposal is to build a spur from HS2 to Heathrow. However, that will not happen until the 2030s at the earliest, so at best Heathrow will not receive a high-speed rail link for around 20 years. If HS2 were linked directly to Heathrow under the proposals that I am outlining, it would receive a high-speed link soon after construction on phase 1 begins in 2026.
Another important design factor is that because the spur points only north, rail services between Heathrow and Europe would not be possible, and the potential for replacing short-haul flights will not be fully realised. We would, therefore, have to wait even longer until the spur has been extended to form a southern loop around Heathrow to connect it with HS1, but no plans are in place for that, let alone a firm budget. Again, I say with great humility to the Minister that no other country deliberately seeks to bypass its main airport in that way.
The spur is also inherently inefficient as it relies solely on airport passengers filling trains. European precedents show the benefit of having airports on a main line, thereby allowing trains to serve both city-to-city and airport passengers, like a string of pearls linking each together.
Mr Donohoe
In a previous Adjournment debate, one question was never raised although it might have solved a lot of problems. Is the hon. Gentleman aware—as a regular customer of the airport, I am—of the distances and time it takes to travel between terminals at Heathrow? As a consequence of those times and distances, a single hub railway station would not really make a lot of difference.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The hon. Gentleman picks up a very important point. I was not going to have time to make it in my speech, but I will now answer his intervention. I believe that it would be perfectly possible to have, from the hub that I am suggesting, a relatively high-speed bus that not only takes people into a terminal at Heathrow, but takes them directly to where the aircraft are. There are all sorts of exciting possibilities to make passenger journeys an awful lot easier than they are at present.
In the “Draft Aviation Policy Framework”, published last Friday by the Government, they recognise the following:
“Rail offers opportunities for efficient and environmentally-friendly connections to airports, particularly for larger airports where passenger numbers are sufficient to justify fast and frequent services.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House. When the Civil Aviation Bill was discussed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, rail links were clearly important factors. The hon. Gentleman is outlining that case now. Does he believe that if a rail link is established along the lines that he is suggesting, that will provide an economic boost? I am thinking of, for instance, connections with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—the world’s developing economies, where job opportunities come from and where contacts are made. Does he believe that there will be job creation in his constituency and other constituencies as a result?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is why I think that world-class infrastructure is vital—for job creation and economic prosperity—but it is also vital, when spending these very large sums, to ensure that we have the best solution. I will go on to explain why I believe that my proposal not only is cheaper, but could be delivered quicker and will produce a better result.
As there is no airport in the UK larger and more important than Heathrow, which alone accounts for 1% of the UK’s GDP, should we not do whatever we can to improve rail links, including with the HS2 project, as I was saying to the hon. Gentleman? The Government have repeatedly stated their wish to see Heathrow become a “better, not bigger” airport, but Heathrow continues to grow in terms of the numbers of passengers using the airport. That is something that we should celebrate, frankly. However, air quality, congestion and delays are already significant issues at Heathrow and, in the case of the air quality, it is illegal. Without an integrated approach to surface access, Heathrow’s challenges can only get worse.
How would a direct link between Heathrow and HS2 help? The answer can be found in the Conservative party’s rail review, published in opposition by the Minister. Although she will not thank me for quoting it, I will nevertheless. It clearly sets out the benefits of integrating air and rail infrastructure. It states:
“Good connections to major airports…also significantly enhance the benefits of high speed rail. So a Conservative Government will support proposals…for a new Heathrow rail hub. This would link Heathrow terminals directly into the main rail network and the lines to Reading, Oxford, Bristol, Plymouth, Cardiff, Swansea, Cheltenham and Southampton, greatly improving public transport links to the airport.”
It also stated:
“The plan would also include construction of a new high speed link connecting Heathrow…to the Channel Tunnel Rail link and the new route north, providing a viable alternative to thousands of short haul flights now clogging up the airport. By freeing up landing slots, our proposal would help tackle overcrowding problems and allow more space for long haul flights, making Heathrow a much better airport, but without the environmental damage that would be caused by a third runway.”
I could not have put it better myself.
It is potentially billions of pounds cheaper to route the high-speed line via a Heathrow interchange on the Great Western main line, compared with the current proposal for the development of a series of branch lines, loops and spurs. The current costs of building HS2 from London to Birmingham, followed by a spur from HS2 to Heathrow and then a loop to rejoin the HS2 main line at Old Oak Common, is projected to be in the region of £20.5 billion to £20.7 billion. However, a connection along the lines that I am suggesting, between HS1 and HS2, connected directly to Heathrow and then on to Birmingham and further north, is projected to cost £17.5 billion, which represents a significant saving on the current proposal. That route, I believe, would be quicker to build, and the passage of the hybrid Bill through Parliament might well be easier, as there would be fewer objections.
Shifting passengers from road to rail and making Heathrow operate more efficiently by reducing passenger and aircraft overcrowding mean that the environmental impacts will be reduced. Let me give an example. Unite the Union calculates that a B747 taxiing and holding for 40 minutes on the ground—a not uncommon occurrence at Heathrow—uses as much fuel as it does at cruise altitude from the UK to New York. Of course, that not only contributes to Heathrow’s air quality failing to comply with legal limits, but increases airlines’ costs. Additionally, the relocation—the point that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was making—of landside facilities outside the existing congested airport site will create more space for aircraft, allowing for more efficient operations. It is suggested that removing unnecessary ground facilities and streamlining the structures of the terminals at Heathrow could allow the creation of an additional 18% of air capacity in one fell swoop. Although that would not remove the demand for a third runway at Heathrow, it would certainly provide the breathing space necessary for the Government to undertake full consideration of the options available to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) suggested.
A high-speed route via Heathrow also avoids the major environmental impacts of the current proposals on the Chilterns and west London. It would follow the example of HS1 by following motorway corridors and the shortest route through an area of outstanding natural beauty, with tunnelling below existing rail corridors where the new line passes through urban areas. The proposed route of HS2 will pass underground from Euston to Old Oak Common before moving overground through large parts of densely populated west London. The line then goes through 20.8 km of an AONB, of which 7.6 km will be above ground and the remaining 13.2 km in a tunnel.
My alternative route via Heathrow would see the entire route through west London tunnelled underneath the Great Western main line before surfacing near Heathrow. Of course, that would involve significantly more tunnelling in London than the current proposals. However, the greatest costs of tunnelling are in the initial set-up. The cost per mile of tunnelling drops as we tunnel further. That approach would greatly reduce noise and air pollution during the construction phase for very large numbers of people. It would follow the precedent set by HS1: much of the line is tunnelled under London, with only a 1-mile section approaching St Pancras overground. It would then have far less surface impact than the current HS2 route, which will pass overground through vast swathes of west London.
The line would then proceed overground to Beaconsfield in the M40 corridor before entering a 12-km tunnel through the entire width of the Chilterns AONB at its narrowest point. In other words, the impact on the Chilterns would be minimised. This tunnel not only would be shorter, but would remove almost entirely the impact of HS2 on the AONB. That might assuage the extremely vocal and well funded local opposition groups that have been set up and that are heavily involved in the judicial review proceedings against the Government in relation to the current HS2 proposals.
Directly connecting Heathrow with the UK’s regions and Europe in the first phase of high speed rail allows rail to replace both domestic and European short-haul flights, releasing vital additional capacity and resilience while linking the UK’s regions to the country’s hub airport. Improving access from the UK regions to Heathrow, our only hub, means that business links with global markets are improved, giving passengers the choice of flying via Heathrow or from regional airports.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would agree with this. The UK is beginning to lose the aviation advantage that we have consistently had in the past by offering more flights to Asia. Heathrow is now losing out to airports such as Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol and Frankfurt, which are offering more flights to Asian destinations. The knock-on effect is that businesses—
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
That is just not true. Heathrow is one of the most successful hub airports in the world. It offers more flights to BRIC destinations; it offers more flights to China than any of its continental rivals. London is arguably the best-connected city in the world, with far more connections than equivalent cities around Europe, including connections to 360 destinations worldwide.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, that may be true for routes to north America, but I think that it is beginning to be—[Hon. Members: “No.”] Let us look at the figures. I think that for secondary Chinese airports, Frankfurt is beginning to overtake Heathrow. I am happy to stand corrected on that, if it is not true. The knock-on effect is that businesses are likely to locate to where the best air connections are, not only for passengers but for freight.
Are there any disadvantages to the approach I am outlining? The answer, in my view, is not really. Birmingham is as far west of London as it is north, so it is incorrect to say that a route west of HS2’s alignment is somehow taking the line out of its way. A diversion of HS2 via Heathrow will add perhaps only three minutes to journey time for trains to stop at Heathrow. I suggest that that is immaterial when set against the benefits I outline. Indeed, British Airways and HS2’s own external challenge groups confirm that, in reality, passengers do not ascribe any value to such small journey time savings, and claiming that each minute saved is worth £0.6 billion seems rather simplistic.
The direct linking of Heathrow and HS2 and improved access to Heathrow from the west would provide enormous benefits to the people and businesses in my constituency and many others to the west of Heathrow. It is, as I have said, vital, given the costs involved, that we maximise the benefits of high-speed rail.
I am fully supportive of the project in principle, and I am certainly not calling for the Government to abandon and give up on all the good work they have done so far. I would urge the Minister however to use the opportunity, before the hybrid Bill is introduced to Parliament, to pause and reflect on whether the direction we are taking, both physically and metaphorically, is the right one. If we take time to consider an integrated approach to air and rail, we can consider the entire HS2 route at the same time. We could then start construction from both north and south in order that the completion date is not extended.
Though it is obviously only one element of the HS2 project, the decreasing business case ratio for HS2, which now stands at 1.2:1, is another reason why we should examine the matter further. Indeed, as the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the now Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), said in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport:
“If it”
—the business case ratio—
“were to fall much below 1.5, I would certainly be putting it under some very close scrutiny.”
Given the importance of putting in place world-class infrastructure, it is vital that the Government retain an open mind. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say on the matter. I would be grateful if she agreed to meet me and other interested colleagues once Parliament has returned in September, to discuss this matter in further detail.
Not only would the hub proposal enormously improve road, rail and air connectivity, it is also a win-win: it is potentially cheaper; the disturbance and environmental pollution in densely populated areas of London is reduced; the damage to the Chilterns AONB is far less; and the connectivity to Heathrow for my constituents, businesses in the Cotswolds and others in the west, south-west and Wales is greatly improved. In short, it is the sort of strategic infrastructure investment that the UK needs to project us back towards the top echelons of global competitiveness for the duration of the 21st century.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister; I cannot be here for her response because I will be in the debate in the main Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. It is an invaluable debate to secure at this time.
In several debates on the issue, I have expressed concerns that the High Speed 2 consultation did not include the Heathrow link as part of a comprehensive consultation on the overall route. The consultation on the Heathrow link was done separately, which was incongruous to say the least. So far, we have witnessed 11 separate options for the link between high-speed rail and Heathrow, in addition to the hub proposal that has been brought forward. I would welcome more information from the Minister in due course on the exact route of the western link into Heathrow announced yesterday.
High-speed rail has consequences for my borough. Despite the Government’s welcome assurances on the tunnelling that will go ahead, areas of Hillingdon will still be directly impacted by high-speed rail. It will have a deleterious effect on people’s homes and local communities. I would welcome further information on the Government’s consideration of the representations that have been made by the London borough of Hillingdon and others.
Mr Donohoe
Can my hon. Friend, as one of the local Members, indicate the time it takes to travel between the terminals—terminals 1 to 5—and the distances? I have looked at it, and it does not make a lot of sense to have a hub outwith the airport.
John McDonnell
That is an extremely valid point. To give BAA its due, it is looking at the efficiency of the transportation of passengers within the airport complex. I do not necessarily think my hon. Friend’s point negates the full argument about a hub, but it certainly undermines some of the arguments for it.
The hub option was raised previously, as well as in local consultations that I undertook, and it would have environmental consequences for that part of west London, particularly West Drayton, which is located fairly close to the proposed Iver site. Some green belt areas would also be lost. In addition, there are concerns about the links from the hub into Heathrow airport. Whether there is a high-speed bus link or a separate direct railway line to the airport from the hub, there will be consequences, depending on the route, for the Heathrow villages, which have only just recovered from the threat of the third runway. If there is not to be a hub, and one of the 11 direct-link options is taken up, the link will travel through my constituency and, I say to the Minister, we would expect the same commitment to tunnelling as has been given to other areas, to avoid the environmental impacts on people’s homes and communities.
The Government tell us that the consultation on the next stage will be in the autumn. When we raised that matter with the Secretary of State, there was an indication that interested Members may well receive some form of briefing on some of the narrowed options being considered in advance of the formal consultation. I would welcome the opportunity to bring together interested Members, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds said, to discuss with Ministers the range of narrowed options and the consequences for our individual constituencies, to ensure that we can provide local input into the Government’s final consideration, but also highlight the impacts on our individual communities.
As I have said in previous debates, to be frank, having separate consultations on the main line and on the link into Heathrow is no way to plan a railway network. Let us now make up the ground and ensure that there is full involvement of MPs in the final stage of consideration and, after that, of whole communities in the consultations on the implications of the different options that the Government are exploring. None of the options is free from environmental consequences, certainly within my area. Many of my constituents would welcome a more efficient Heathrow, as other Members have said, because many of them work there, but they want to protect their local communities and homes from any further direct environmental impacts that might result.
I welcome the debate. I do not believe the hub is necessarily the solution. It has consequences. We need early consideration of the range of options as soon as possible, to give some certainty to local communities and to avoid the continuation of what is becoming a blight—certainly on my area.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I add my congratulations to those that others have given to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important debate. I agree with the thrust of much of what he said.
Let me start by welcoming the Government’s announcement of the western spur link to Heathrow. It will greatly improve Heathrow’s rail connectivity to the west and to some areas to the north. I have slightly higher ambitions for the link than my hon. Friend. If we combined that spur with the electrification of the Great Western line and the extra pass it would create, it might be possible to schedule direct services from the west into Heathrow. I do not have the exact timetable modelling to hand, but I believe that it would be possible.
In conjunction with the welcome announcement of the east-west rail link, which goes through my constituency and will also be electrified, it is proposed that some trains will run from Reading to Oxford and then over to Milton Keynes and Bedford. I see no reason why those services should not start at Heathrow, which would be most welcome in my part of the world. Such a move would boost the connectivity of Milton Keynes and our local enterprise area and be attractive for inward investment. The announcement is certainly welcome and hugely significant.
Let me turn to High Speed 2 and its connections with Heathrow. As a member of the Transport Committee, I have looked at the matter in some detail. For some time, I have taken the view that we must look at our strategic rail and aviation policies as two parts of the same whole. They cannot be looked at in isolation from each other, and I have a number of suggestions on which I hope the Minister will reflect.
One of the ambitions for high-speed rail is to achieve a modal shift from domestic aviation to high-speed rail, which is welcome. If we look at the upgrade of the west coast main line, there is a significant shift of traffic from Manchester to London from air to rail. High-speed rail offers greater potential to achieve that shift in domestic travel, and, as my hon. Friend said, that will free up some slots at Heathrow for longer-haul destinations. However, that is only part of the answer. The number of slots that that will free up is comparatively small in relation to the total and increasing demand on Heathrow. At present, there are 1.25 million journeys a year from Heathrow to Edinburgh; 1 million to Glasgow; and 800,000 to Manchester, with a significant percentage of those transferring to other flights. Heathrow is not the destination for many people. Strategically siting a Heathrow hub to attract more of that domestic aviation market will offer huge potential and relieve some of the capacity at Heathrow.
I urge the Government to have a think at this critical juncture before we commit to the detailed legislation on High Speed 2 and proceed with the aviation strategy. We should not rush in and commit ourselves to one project that we might later regret. I do not expect a detailed answer from the Minister at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds has mentioned a Heathrow hub, but that is one of many solutions. Others may be available. I urge the Government to use this brief interlude to do a bit of strategic thinking and to ask themselves, “Have we got the detail of this right, or are there better options available?”
Let me give a couple of suggestions to illustrate what I mean. If we look at Birmingham airport in conjunction with Heathrow, there is real potential that together they can be regarded as a split hub or a virtual hub. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has raised the issue of the travel time between different Heathrow terminals. If—it is a big if—High Speed 2 is constructed efficiently, it will not take much longer to travel between Heathrow and Birmingham airport than it does between Heathrow terminals. It will possibly require air site to air site connections that do not involve changing trains somewhere, but it does, none the less, offer huge potential.
With modest capital expenditure on its runway, Birmingham airport has considerable capacity. It would be perfectly possible for it to be regarded as part of Heathrow—as part of a split hub. I do not think that the detailed planning work has been carried out. Before we get into radical long-term options such as building a third or fourth runway at Heathrow, Boris island or any other option, we should consider much more carefully the potential that we have. I believe that options such as a split hub are possible, but I am not a railway civil engineer; there are people far brainier than me who can determine such things. The option should be considered, because it would find favour with the people at Birmingham airport who are aware of its huge potential.
Mr Donohoe
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow Scot, for giving way. The biggest problem in transport today is the connectivity between various forms of transport. Unless and until we wake up to the fact that technology is now available to overcome that, all of what he says is meaningless. As somebody who has to travel on a weekly basis, using three or four different forms of transport, I see how much time is wasted every time I have to travel back to my constituency. Until that problem is overcome and is understood by Government, any of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals are of no value whatever.
Iain Stewart
In part, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must look at journeys as a whole and not as individual component parts. For decades, we, as a country, have not got this right. Improvements could be made in a number of areas, from ticketing arrangements through to big capital investment. Yes, we have to do that, but I am putting forward one idea through which we might be able to achieve better connectivity. A journey from London to New York might involve taking a train for the first part of it. In Germany, such through-ticketing options do exist. The first part of the journey, for example, is on Deutsche Bahn before the passenger transfers on to Lufthansa. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I am more optimistic about the potential to achieve such connectivity.
If High Speed 2 is properly connected to High Speed 1 and the channel tunnel, we will open up the option of achieving a modal shift not only in the number of domestic passengers into Heathrow but in the number of passengers travelling from Heathrow and Birmingham to the near continent, to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. It would require careful planning. At the moment, it is estimated that the pivotal point for making a rail journey more attractive than flying is about three and a half hours. That will probably lengthen as business travellers value properly constructed carriages that allow them to do business during the course of their journey. If we look at the total travel time involved in a journey from Birmingham to Paris, there is real potential to achieve that modal shift, which will free up more capacity for longer-haul destinations without having to resort to the radical options of new runways or a completely new airport.
Let me give a few figures. There are 1.3 million flight passengers a year going from Heathrow to Amsterdam, the same number going to Paris and Frankfurt, and 500,000 to Brussels and Dusseldorf. Therefore, significant capacity at Heathrow could be released if we get the planning right.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
There is another point in my hon. Friend’s equation. Railway stations seem to be located in the middle of city centres, whereas airports are on the outskirts of cities, and sometimes considerably so. There is always the necessity for a different type of journey to get to the airports. If we go directly from the centre of Glasgow to the centre of Paris, there may not be too much difference in time with high-speed rail.
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It is not an either/or situation. The line between Frankfurt and Cologne calls at Frankfurt airport, so people have the option of going either to the city centre or to the main airport.
My hon. Friend has put forward the Heathrow hub as a specific model. I do not have any particular detailed knowledge about whether that is the correct solution, but it is one of several possibilities that should be seriously considered.
In essence, that is my point. I do not want the Minister to come back and reject the Heathrow hub or favour another option. I just urge the Government in the recess, when tempers cool down a little and there is time for a little more blue-sky strategic thinking, to use that natural pause in our strategic transport planning to assess whether we have got this matter right or whether we could make some adjustments to improve the capacity of what we have and what is already planned before we start committing ourselves to more radical options, which have all sorts of other issues surrounding them.
On that point, I will conclude and allow other Members to speak in the debate.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am very grateful, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak, and I apologise in advance for not having notified you of my wish to do so. However, bearing in mind the time that we have, it is important that a wide spectrum of opinion on this issue is heard.
As you know, Dr McCrea, I represent South Swindon, which my constituents and I regard as the hub of the Great Western Railway. Swindon is very much a town that looks outwards in terms of its opportunities for growth, jobs and investment. One of the main concerns of businesses in Swindon, the town I have the honour to represent, is connectivity with Heathrow airport. In many cases, that is a more important issue for my constituents than connectivity with the centre of London, which is why the announcement last week by the Department for Transport about the creation of a western connection from Heathrow to the Great Western line was welcome news indeed. Of course, we understand that the control period is up to 2021, but a commitment of just under half a billion pounds is a significant shot in the arm for the economy that I represent. It potentially brings Swindon within 55 minutes of Heathrow airport, if the line from Reading through Maidenhead and Slough to Heathrow is constructed. Electrification would bring greater flexibility and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) has said, we hope to see a direct service from Swindon and the west to Heathrow airport.
However, the debate today is somewhat more long-term. It is quite a common mistake that we all fall into as politicians in failing to appreciate the amount of time that a lot of these big projects take. We must remind ourselves that the High Speed 2 project is a project that will take 15 years or longer, rather than something that deals with the here and now. Although it is always important to look at the raw facts when it comes to the current operating success of Heathrow, that does not mean that in the medium to long term that position will remain the same. It is important to remember that when we consider this debate and where we are going. We are talking about a long-term future for Heathrow and long-term connectivity and capacity. That is why it is important that the case made so strongly by my hon. Friend is considered very carefully indeed.
I accept that many different permutations and options have been put on the table in the long debate about how we connect Heathrow airport with our rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was careful to make that point and he is absolutely right to say that neither he nor anybody else has a particular monopoly of wisdom when it comes to the precise nature of such a scheme.
Mr Buckland
My hon. Friend says, “None of us have”, and I reinforce that message. However, it is very important for people like me to make a strong plea for the Government to look to the long term and to understand that it is only by achieving direct connectivity to airports such as Heathrow that we will acknowledge the fact that, with the exponential and welcome increase in the use of our railways, the demands upon our network will only become more stringent.
My worry is that we will be standing or sitting here in Westminster Hall in 15 years’ time, and looking back and realising that we have missed a great opportunity to rectify an historical anomaly when it comes to an airport of the significance and size of Heathrow. There it was, having been constructed in the post-war era, and it expanded to meet the huge demand placed upon it, and yet there were no direct rail links to it until many years later, when there was the link to Paddington. Now we have more development, which is welcome indeed. However, those poor rail links to Heathrow are an anomaly of history that we are duty-bound to try to rectify.
That is why it is absolutely vital that, in understanding the potential of HS2 to unlock the north, we must not forget the west. That is the plea I make today, that in any future development of HS2 priority is placed upon the need to connect the major airport for our country with the rest of England and the wider UK. Central London is, of course, an important destination, but the businesses that I represent tell me time and time again that it is Heathrow airport that is crucial to their future success. The importance of businesses’ ability to link with Heathrow should not be underestimated.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friends’ speeches; both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) have made very good points.
The reason that I called this particular debate today was that once the planning gets too far down the line—excuse the pun—and particularly when the hybrid Bill has gone through this place, it will be much more difficult to consider alternatives than it is now. Now is the time that we must urge the Minister to stand back, pause and consider whether there are any better alternatives; there may not be, but she should look to see if there are.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. When I looked in detail at a map of Old Oak Common—and I am delighted that it will become an important part of this network—one thing struck me very forcibly that I had not realised before, and that is how close the Euston line runs to the Great Western Line. In fact, there is a connecting spur now that allows trains to move between the two networks.
That spur is a metaphor for the debate that we are having today. We are within an ace of getting things right in terms of judging future demand, not only for rail capacity but for the future of our principal airport. As I have said, it would be a missed opportunity, as well as a tragedy, if we were within an ace of getting things right and we then missed the opportunity that, as my hon. Friend says, the hybrid Bill presents. He is right to say that once we proceed down the line of legislation, it will become more difficult to add on various concepts or indeed to get the basic concepts right in the first place. So this debate today is timely, I welcome it and I congratulate him on securing it. I wish to add my voice on behalf of both the west of England and south Wales—let us not forget that region—and the whole growing economy and growing population that need support and proper connectivity with what will continue to be our principal airport for many years to come.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Dr McCrea, for the opportunity to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important and timely debate today. I commend him for making a speech that had many excellent and vital points. He will be delighted to hear that I will reinforce those points in my own speech.
This debate is important because, despite the step change when Heathrow was linked to the national network in 1999 and which has already been referred to, its rail links remain inferior to those of most of its European competitors and indeed to those of many smaller UK airports. And this debate is timely because last week we had not only the very welcome news of investment in a western rail link to Heathrow but a continuation of the silence about the central issue of airport capacity in the south-east. Of course, this debate is closely tied to that issue. In addition, the issues surrounding the Boston Manor viaduct on the M4 have underlined the fragility of existing transport links to Heathrow, as well as the need for infrastructure resilience and a range of alternative routes.
The proposed construction of a rail spur to link destinations to the west of Heathrow directly to the airport could bring real improvements. Removing the need for a journey via Paddington or a coach from Reading will reduce journey times and it will make rail a more attractive option for hundreds of thousands of airport users each year, cutting congestion on the M4 and other roads. Both the draft aviation strategy framework and the high-level output statement are short on detail, so perhaps the Minister will fill in some of the gaps. What is the status of the £500 million of funding mentioned for the scheme? Does she expect the aviation industry to foot some of the bill? What is the timetable for putting together a business case for the programme, and can she confirm the planned opening date of 2021, which has been mentioned in the media? Is it intended that the link will provide through services from the west of England and south Wales to Heathrow, or will local trains simply shuttle between Reading, Slough and the airport?
Mr Donohoe
Has my hon. Friend considered how long the connection to Scotland will take?
John Woodcock
That, I know, is a continuing and important longer-term issue for High Speed 2. Every time it is raised it is incumbent on us all to stress that even the first phase, as it is currently set out, would reduce journey times to Scotland. Obviously the further north the high-speed line goes, the faster those journey times will be, which we all want.
A western link would provide welcome improved connections, as will the commencement of Crossrail in 2018; but if Heathrow is to function better as a major national airport it needs national connectivity. The airport currently has 70 million passengers a year. Whatever decisions are eventually made on south-east expansion—if they are made—Heathrow will remain dominant for the foreseeable future. Yet for much of the country, it is cosmically hard to access, at present, except by car or a domestic flight. To take the example of my constituents in south Cumbria, there are many business or holiday destinations to which only Heathrow offers a direct flight, and if people want to avoid a five-hour drive and hefty parking charges they consider taking the train. However, they find that that will take just as long and will require four changes, which is not much fun for people with a lot of luggage, those with a young family, or people who have limited mobility. Instead, many take a domestic flight from Manchester, at financial and environmental cost, or they fly via a European hub airport.
High Speed 2 could help to solve that problem and significantly strengthen Heathrow as a truly national airport. Linking Heathrow into HS2 at the earliest possible opportunity would allow for faster, far better integrated journeys between the airport and various northern destinations. Connecting Heathrow would, as has been well explained in several speeches today, make it possible to boost the economies of the regions, reduce road congestion and cut short-haul flights, and, in doing so, begin to address Heathrow’s chronic capacity problem. We deeply regret, therefore, that Ministers have chosen to reject Labour’s call for the first phase of HS2 to run via Heathrow. Instead, they have opted thus far for an expensive branch line, which it appears will not even be legislated for as part of phase 1 and will not be built until an unspecified future date. Can the Minister provide any more clarity on that point?
An Old Oak Common interchange with Crossrail would indeed make for an easier journey to Heathrow for many people; but it is no substitute, as has been explained today, for a through train. As the hon. Member for the Cotswolds eloquently explained, the sad thing is that the Minister used to get that. If she does not mind, I shall quote her. In March 2010, just before the general election—how things change—she told the House of Commons that
“the idea that some kind of ‘Wormwood Scrubs international’ station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 451.]
Hear, hear: but just two years on, that is exactly what the Minister proposes—at least until 2033. Why the volte face? Will she take this opportunity to condemn the potentially deeply damaging briefings from somewhere in Government, suggesting a wobble on the entire project? If she is not wobbling, it is important that she should say so now, and I am delighted to give way.
John Woodcock
The Minister is not for wobbling and we are very pleased to hear it.
Any aviation strategy—and it would be nice to have one—must have as its starting point maximising the efficiency of the capacity that already exists. It is far better to use a slot to land 600 passengers from Beijing than 200 from Manchester. Ministers are right to cite, in their recent document, the potential for code sharing to promote through tickets from international flights to trains; but the key to that success is that the high-speed train should stop at the airport, not several miles away. Further, as has been mentioned, an HS2 link into Heathrow could provide a connection to the existing line to the channel tunnel, raising the possibility of high-speed trains replacing hub flights to nearby European destinations.
There is still time for Ministers to reconsider their stance on HS2. The right hon. Lady knows that high-speed rail commands support across the House. It has the full support of the Opposition, and we are keen to work together to get the necessary legislation on the statute book and to get spades in the ground. However, we will continue to argue that Heathrow should be part of phase 1 of the scheme. A failure to connect Britain’s hub airport to its first domestic high-speed line would epitomise the failure to join up UK infrastructure planning—a failure in transport that has bedevilled the country for too long.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to respond to an interesting and well-informed debate. I congratulate, as other hon. Members have done, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing it and on his thoughtful and insightful speech on his ideas for the route options for HS2. I thank him and other hon. Members for the support that they have expressed for the announcements that we made yesterday on improving the rail network and for their support in principle for the dramatic further improvement that we will deliver with the HS2 project. It is always welcome to hear Opposition Front Benchers repeat their support for high-speed rail, because it is only with cross-party support that projects of such magnitude can be successful.
The Government have put transport at the heart of their strategy for economic growth and recovery, because improving our transport system is one of the best ways to support British jobs, boost business and create growth. That is one reason for our commitment to the biggest rail capacity expansion programme since the Victorian era. Yesterday, we added a further major package of projects to that already ambitious programme.
We fully accept the importance of high-quality surface access to airports, and we emphasised that point in the aviation framework document that we published last week. We are co-ordinating our rail and aviation policies, and I fully agree with the points made this afternoon about the importance of co-ordination and integration, between air and rail on the ground and in the decision and policy-making processes. That point was made by my hon. and great Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), and by my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). [Interruption.] Well, I have known my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for 20 years, so he gets an extra-warm mention whenever we are in a debate together.
Reliable rail and road access can obviously contribute greatly to the quality of the passenger experience at our airports, and it is an important component in ensuring that our airports provide high-quality international gateways. It is particularly important to airport workers and crucial to the air freight sector, which is another important UK industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds that greater use of rail access to airports has the potential to reduce carbon emissions, as well as relieving road congestion, and also improving air quality, which is a real issue at Heathrow.
Mr Donohoe
I am sure that the Minister has listened to my questions to some of the other contributors this afternoon. Can she tell us how long it takes the passenger who gets out of a plane at terminal 4 to get to terminal 1, and what distance they travel?
Mrs Villiers
Certainly. It takes passenger a while to get from terminal 4 to the other terminals. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue about Heathrow’s current layout, and I will come to it in a moment. Despite the adversities, however, Heathrow continues to be a successful airport. I appreciate and understand the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, but one of the fundamental drawbacks of his proposed rail hub at Iver, to support Heathrow, is that it would be more than three miles from the airport terminals. What my hon. Friend advocates would compound the problem that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has just alluded to, which is that Heathrow is already very spread out.
Returning for a moment to the environmental impact of surface access, I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). It is important that we all focus on the environmental impact of surface access, as well on that of aviation. We are committed to working with airport operators, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to improve surface access to our major airports across the country. Time constrains me from going into detail, but improvements are under way in Manchester and Birmingham, and Luton will get better road access and Gatwick a new station. A tremendous amount of work is under way to improve access at a number of airports.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend is making a helpful speech, but I would not like the four interventions made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) to colour the debate. With innovative solutions, it is possible for travellers, having checked their bags in at the hub that I propose—or others propose—to get in to a more rationalised Heathrow airport and on to an aeroplane via high-speed rail at considerably increased speeds.
Mrs Villiers
But it remains the case that among the downsides of my hon. Friend’s suggestion are the distance from the terminals, the lack of a serious proposal about how that distance will be travelled and a failure to cost the idea.
Returning to the work that is being done on rail access to Heathrow—the subject of the debate—Crossrail is now well under way, more than two decades since it was first proposed, and the tunnel boring machines have started their journey under central London. We expect the Crossrail project to provide new services that link Heathrow directly with the west end, the City and Canary Wharf for the first time. The 2010 spending review confirmed the Government’s shared commitment with the Mayor to the tube upgrade programme, which will increase the overall capacity of the London underground network by 30% and improve reliability, benefiting people travelling to Heathrow by tube.
Last week, as has been acknowledged, we announced as part of our aviation policy framework that the Government will provide funding for a new rail line to Heathrow from the Great Western main line near Slough. It would provide significantly improved connections from destinations west of the airport—a point already made—and would cut journey times from those destinations by as much as half an hour. Easier, faster and more convenient access to one of the world’s busiest and most successful airports should provide a significant boost to the economies of the Thames valley, south Wales and the west and south-west of England.
I very much welcome the enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about how we might seek to take advantage of the electrification and east-west rail proposals, to see if we can further improve and enhance access to Heathrow airport.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about the project. More work is needed to refine it and assess delivery time scales over the coming months, including the consideration of route options. The scheme remains subject to the delivery of a robust business case, and we hope to secure funding contributions from the Heathrow aviation community.
Mr Donohoe
When this issue was presented to the House, at the outset, an area of some dubiety was that tunnelling would be cheaper than putting rail above ground. I have talked to a number of civil engineers, and none of them believes in that prospect. Can the Minister shed any light on where the information came from?
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I know that the Minister is delighted to look towards her very good friend, and her other hon. Friends, but it is always nice if you turn towards the Chair and look also at Opposition Members.
Mrs Villiers
I do apologise, Dr McCrea, and I shall ensure that I project more efficiently around the room. I have now completely forgotten what the hon. Gentleman asked me about.
Mrs Villiers
Yes. It depends on the circumstances. It is important to appreciate that a significant cost associated with tunnelling is the disposal of spoil. In certain instances, combining two tunnels might reduce the cost of such disposal, so tunnelling does not end up cheaper than doing something on the surface in every case. However, where we can get synergies between two different projects that reduce the cost of spoil disposal, we can deliver an overall reduction in cost.
On the route options, whether for western access to Heathrow via conventional rail or, in due course, the high-speed rail spur to the airport, we will seriously consider what is viable regarding tunnelling, just as we have done in relation to the rest of the HS2 route. It is too early to make the decisions because they are subject to consultation and further processes, but we will, of course, seriously consider that, given the areas through which the new lines would go.
In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, if things progress smoothly, the new line giving western access to Heathrow could be operational by around 2020 or 2022. No final decisions have yet been made on timetables for direct trains, but we expect there to be through trains from destinations in the west, because that would be the better way to realise the benefits of the programme.
Our high-level output specification proposals, announced last week, to improve access to Heathrow from the west will complement our work on HS2, which we expect to provide greatly improved access to the airport from destinations in the midlands and the north of England. We are taking a phased approach to HS2.
In phase 1, when the London to Birmingham line is built, we want passengers from the west midlands, Manchester and other cities in the north to be able to connect as seamlessly as possible with the Heathrow Express at a new station at Old Oak common. Phase 1 is expected to open in 2026, and will include a direct connection to Birmingham airport. I welcome the interesting ideas proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South about how we might use that improved surface access to Birmingham to help the airport flourish and attract more aviation passengers, potentially from the south-east, given the improved rail access that HS2 will deliver.
Phase 2 will follow in 2032-33, when the HS2 line will be extended to Manchester and Leeds. A direct connection with Heathrow is planned as part of the second phase.
John Woodcock
Why has the Minister changed her mind? Has the Secretary of State for Transport just taken a different view?
Mrs Villiers
A huge amount of work has been done to analyse the options, including one of the biggest consultations ever undertaken in this country. I would be arrogant to ignore the results of that work and that consultation. I am absolutely convinced that the preferred route, which will be proposed in a hybrid Bill, is the right one, and I will explain why in due course.
Mrs Villiers
I do agree with it. I give the shadow Minister my firm assurance that the preferred route that we are proposing, after the consultation and consideration of all the consultation responses, is the right one.
Mr Donohoe
May I show the Minister a poster that I picked up in Wendover on Sunday? It does not give us much hope that constituents in that part of the world are likely to have as much enthusiasm as us about the building of HS2.
Mrs Villiers
It is inevitable, when one seeks to build a major piece of infrastructure, that it will cause anxiety in the areas in which it will have a local impact. I will come in a moment to the efforts that the Government have been making to mitigate or reduce the impact of HS2. We fully understand the anxiety felt by those in the local areas affected and by those with wider concerns about protecting the countryside, but as I have said in the House many times, I firmly believe that, with high-quality engineering and care, we can mitigate the worst effects of HS2 and emulate the success of HS1, which has been delivered without the catastrophic local impacts once predicted for it. I believe that it is possible to deliver infrastructure on that scale in a way that is fair to the local communities affected by it. The Government are determined to do all that is reasonable to ensure that we mitigate the local impact of HS2.
To pick up where I left off, the Government’s preferred option for delivering the direct connection to Heathrow is a spur running from the main HS2 line, which would allow passengers from the midlands and the north to travel directly to the airport without having to change trains. Some of my hon. Friends and colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Member for The Cotswolds and for Milton Keynes South, asked for a pause. I assure them that other options, including a direct alignment that would have taken the line to Birmingham nearer to Heathrow, were considered before deciding on the preferred route that was presented for consultation.
Further thought and analysis was carried out on direct alignment as part of the consultation and the Government’s consideration of the many thousands of responses. As I said, it was one of the most extensive consultations ever carried out, and I am confident that the outcome is the right one. I assure my hon. Friends that further scrutiny will take place when the hybrid Bill goes through Parliament.
After the consultation and analysis were completed, it was decided that a spur to Heathrow would provide the better option, and it was concluded that the proposal advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds would have involved too great a journey time penalty and too much extra cost and, as I said, would not have taken the line to the airport. The site at Iver, the proposal for which he supports, is more than three miles from the airport terminals.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s sincere belief in the Government’s preferred solution rather than the option that I proposed, but I am trying to get something out of this debate. Will she carefully consider building the Heathrow spur in the first phase of HS2, so that at least the residents of Birmingham and Birmingham airport can get the benefit of that spur as soon as possible? Will she also consider the northward-facing aspect of the spur, so that at least it can be used from central London, as well as by those approaching London from the north?
Mrs Villiers
I will come to timing in a moment. We are enthusiastic about making progress on all aspects of HS2 as soon as we can. If we can speed up the process, we will be delighted to do so, but as I said, I will come in a moment to the timing of the next steps on phase 2 and the spur. I assure my hon. Friend that the spur is planned to have what is known as a delta junction, which could enable trains to run from Heathrow on to HS1, and possibly on to European destinations, when the spur is built.
On the timetable, the Government have asked HS2 Ltd to develop detailed route options for the spur. The plans will then be subject to detailed public consultation in 2014, alongside the rest of phase 2. If possible, we would like to make fast progress and start the consultation next year. Depending on the results of that consultation, the spur could be included in the hybrid Bill for the second phase, including the Y network.
HS2 represents a valuable opportunity to draw important strategic links between major components of our transport infrastructure. As my hon. Friend mentioned, other countries have successfully integrated high-speed rail services with their international airports. Using HS2 to improve access to the country’s major hub airport for businesses in the midlands and the north will create new opportunities for growth. Better links to Heathrow will make those regions even more attractive locations to invest and do business in, because they will benefit from Heathrow’s global reach as a successful hub airport.
As I said earlier, London has one of the most extensive aviation networks in the world, with connections to more than 360 destinations. Heathrow alone has more flights to the crucial BRIC economies than any of its rivals, including more flights to China. Airlines are expanding and covering new routes to key emerging markets. For example, British Airways recently started a new route to Seoul.
I agree with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we should look to HS2 to provide an attractive alternative to thousands of short-haul flights. Experience in Europe shows that where high-speed rail competes with aviation, it can capture a significant proportion of the market for journeys of up to three or even four hours. For example, Air France stopped flying between Paris and Brussels entirely when the high-speed rail link opened between the two cities, and high-speed rail in Spain led to a significant switch from domestic aviation to the train. Deutsche Bahn proposes to start direct services between London, Amsterdam and Paris, so the train could start to compete with the plane for some passengers on those routes, just as Eurostar already does on the Paris-Brussels-London route.
Mr Donohoe
There has even been a change domestically: BA has removed all services from Birmingham to London as a result of the upgrading of the west coast main line.
Mrs Villiers
Absolutely. The upgrading of the west coast main line encouraged a switch from air to rail travel from Manchester as well.
I believe that the HS2 plans that I have outlined have the potential to deliver further air to rail switch. In particular, the completion of phase 2 will deliver journey times between Edinburgh or Glasgow and London of not much more than three and a half hours. In 2010, there were about 382 flights a week between those destinations and Heathrow, and about 962 flights a week to the five London airports from Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Providing an attractive alternative to those flights could release vital capacity, which could provide opportunities for developing new routes to emerging markets and other key long-haul destinations in just the way that my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and others have outlined today. Better integration of rail and air in terms of flight schedules, through-ticketing and baggage check-in could intensify the switch from the plan to the train. The shadow Minister has made a valid point on those maters.
No debate on HS2 would be complete without reference to the local environmental impact. I fully recognise people’s concerns about the local environmental impact of HS2 and the preferred route, including the potential impact of a proposed Heathrow spur. There is no easy way to build a new train line through our country. I am afraid that the alignment proposed by my hon. Friend and supported by Mark Bostock would not be a miracle solution. Local impacts would still have to be considered, and, frankly, there would still be controversy. It would just be transplanted to a different area.
We have gone to very great lengths to listen to those with concerns about our preferred route and to take steps to mitigate its local impact. In particular, we are working to respond to the concerns of communities around Euston, where the station redevelopment impacts most on homes and communities. The Secretary of State for Transport regularly meets elected representatives from the area; we are working with Camden council; and we have already agreed to fund the Euston opportunity area planning framework to address the issues raised by the planned Euston expansion, including the investigation of options for the provision of replacement social housing. Elsewhere on the route, there will be a more than 50% increase in tunnel or green tunnel compared with the plans that we inherited from our Labour predecessors.
As I have said many times, I believe that, with the right mitigation and high-quality engineering, HS2 need not have anything like the extreme impact that its opponents fear. The precedent provided by HS1 shows that it is possible to have a high-speed line that does not devastate the communities through which it passes.
There are difficult times ahead, whether in relation to the main part of HS2 or to the Heathrow spur under discussion, but I firmly believe that this project will generate tremendous economic benefits. It is vital if we are to deal with the capacity crunch that we will face on our inter-city rail connections in the coming years, and that is why I welcome the support that has been expressed for HS2 in today’s debate.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister, and I also thank all the hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I wish those Members who will now leave the Chamber a very pleasant recess.
Cyprus
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on Cyprus under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I welcome the Minister, who is not the Minister for Europe, but his portfolio includes responsibility for human rights. The issue of human rights transcends the boundaries of Cyprus and should be a matter of concern to us all. Indeed, some years ago, the Minister was on the campaign trail in Enfield, Southgate and may know about the issue of Cyprus. It is certainly of great concern to my constituents and others.
In the past 40 years there have been many debates about Cyprus in this House. Over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, and particularly given my constituency interest, I have inevitably been involved in speaking on Cyprus and securing many such debates. This time it is a particular pleasure to have secured a debate, because this month Cyprus has assumed the presidency of the European Union. It is a great historic achievement of a small but important island in Europe. It is a cause for celebration of the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus. Its leadership comes at a crucial time, given the travails in Europe. I am sure that the House will wish the Cyprus presidency well over the next six months.
But—sadly, with Cyprus politics there is usually a “but”—the reason why there have been so many debates over nearly four decades is that Cyprus remains divided, with the north occupied by Turkish troops. Ministers—and perhaps the Minister here today—will visit Nicosia during the next six months. That city is the only divided capital in Europe; part of the island in the north remains occupied by troops from a foreign country—Turkey—leading to the north being one of the most militarised places in the world.
During this six-month period, pressure needs to be put on Turkey to properly recognise the Republic of Cyprus. The threats made by Turkish leaders to freeze relations with the European Union while Cyprus has the presidency should not wash with the United Kingdom or the Government. If—as many want—Turkey wants in time to be a member of the European club, it needs to play by the rules, which include respecting the rotating presidency and also respecting European agreements, not least the customs union. It is extraordinary that, although a key aim of the presidency is developing European Union maritime policy, Turkey refuses to fulfil the Ankara protocol and to accept Cyprus ships at its ports. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that during the next six months the Government will do all they can to put pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus and not let it off the hook during a period that can be seen too easily as a vacuum period.
The subject of the debate is Cyprus, but I have already spent time talking about Turkey. When I spoke in a debate two weeks ago about UK relations with Turkey, I spoke about Cyprus. Sadly, Turkey’s influence and involvement in Cyprus are significant. We and no doubt the Minister will want to reaffirm that the future of Cyprus must be properly determined by Cypriots, but Turkey calls the shots in the north. It is therefore incumbent on Britain to help to ensure that Cypriots— Greek and Turkish Cypriots—have the freedom and capacity to determine their future as a reunited island based on the principles of the United Nations framework of the bizonal, bicommunal federal solution.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Having been to Cyprus on two separate occasions in the past six weeks as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I very much endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. We are conscious of the problem that he has identified, and it would be extremely helpful if the present Cypriot Government addressed the problem of fraudulent titles, which is a problem for some 2,000 people in the UK who have interests in the land. A Minister in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Cyprus told me that they would try to sort it out. Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as we have to sort out the Turkish question, the Cypriots have a responsibility to sort out the problem of fraudulent titles?
Mr Burrowes
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention on the issues of fraudulent titles and illegal occupation of land. The Foreign Office website advises UK citizens to be clear about property ownership in the north. It advises against exploiting the situation and highlights the illegality in the north. It is a huge problem that needs to be resolved.
I imagine the Minister who took up the brief today may have approached the debate with some weariness given the stalemate in the talks between the Cypriot leaders. The House is familiar with the debate. The main purpose of the debate today is to seek to break new ground and to urge the Government not to sit on the sidelines or just cheer or cajole from the terraces, but to take seriously our historical responsibilities and our responsibilities as a guarantor power. We have responsibilities to many of those represented here. I see my hon. Friends here. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), has a significant number of Cypriot constituents, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It is clear that many Members are concerned that we do not simply let the next six months pass.
One of the areas of new ground is curiously an old one: religious and cultural heritage. Last May, I led an all-party group delegation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Hendon and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), to clean up some cemeteries and churches in Cyprus. Some of the cemeteries had been neglected, but most had been desecrated. Having visited the north last November, I witnessed for myself the desecration and damage. I resolved that the next time I returned we would do something practical about it.
Our delegation did not visit national political leaders, which is what usually happens. We wanted to focus on the local communities and villages to try not only physically to restore respect to trashed cemeteries and pillaged churches, but to restore the link between the village associations—both Greek and Turkish Cypriot—which, through the conflict, has sadly been lost.
Our visit’s aim was not to try to change the world or to solve the Cyprus problem—or indeed to restore all religious and cultural heritage—in a few days. The aim was to take some small but practical steps through cleaning a cemetery or a church to rebuild confidence and to make the point that, as British Members of Parliament with responsibilities, along with the Cypriots who were with us, we would not tolerate the desecration of religious heritage.
We will not accept the status quo. We made the point loud and clear that the situation cannot just be accepted and allowed to carry on. The memories of loved ones and the places of worship that people want to go to matter. Such respect transcends faiths, backgrounds and countries. It is about respect for common shared values. In building those small steps of confidence, the aim was to lead to a better future.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Does he agree that when we visited heritage sites on the north and the south of the island they were sadly not as they should be? By reaching beyond the politicians in the villages of Pigi and Peristerona, we saw people coming together from both sides of the island who have not seen each other for a long time. They shared that wish for respect and for restoration. We can reach above the politicians, and civic society has a role to play in helping to bring about the right solution.
Mr Burrowes
That visit was one of the most positive that I have been on, because we were able to see that. The common refrain is that the problem is not the people but the politics and the involvement of an outside political force in the form of Turkey. For example, in Peristerona—because of our presence, no doubt—there was a feeling of wanting to do something about a church that, throughout the time of division, had not been touched. Over time, debris, rubbish and droppings had accumulated. While we were there, we were able to see that church cleared of the debris—we were able to make a video—for the first time. A Cypriot who lived in Liverpool just happened to turn up on a visit. He had been baptised in the church before it was destroyed and desecrated. To see someone take an interest and some care—local Turkish Cypriots were helping to restore it as well—made a big difference to him. He said that there is a brighter future and that we can do something about it—not just so much talk that we often hear about, but real, practical action.
There were, however, some who warned us against doing that. Particularly in the north, politicians tried to lobby against us and build division where there was none. The media also seemed to be against us. There was caution, too, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I see some of the team here, and I pay tribute to its helpful advice throughout the trip, for which I was grateful. There was a cautionary note saying that we should do things only when we had the approval of various people, not least Mr Kucuk in the north, the so-called Prime Minister. He would give us direction on whether we were able to go ahead with our cleaning activities.
What we actually found was that Cyprus does not wholly work like that—quite properly so. It works through villages. It works through different villages that take their orders from no one; they run themselves as they have done in years gone by. They will not simply take orders from those on high. They were concerned more with the relationship they had with us and the village association people, and they were willing to take steps. They said very clearly that they would give permission for future cleaning programmes, which was encouraging and we need to make progress.
One of the highlights was our visit to Assia. Again, there were cautionary notes about it being in a nationalist area and close to an army base. However, with Greek Cypriot association villagers who had the confidence to come over for the first time with us, we were able to build a good degree of confidence with local Turkish Cypriots, mukhtars and mayors and say, “Yes, together we can do something about this.” In that village, a mosque and a church need restoring, and together they want to work on them. We also went to a cemetery that had been trashed over the years, but they were able to go there for the first time and see that we cared about the fact that the cemetery needs to be in a better condition.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for securing the debate and for organising the visit. He mentioned the visit to Assia, which I found very poignant. Some of the people who accompanied us from the UK and, as he said, felt safe coming out with us, took us on a tour around the graveyard. One gentleman’s aunt had died on the day I was born, so I certainly feel a link with what we want to achieve in Assia. I certainly hope that, following our visit, we will have a programme of works, and that the mukhtars and the people in the north will engage with the people from the south, and from the United Kingdom, to ensure that graveyards are cleaned up, churches are repaired and some kind of civility is brought back to the island of Cyprus.
Mr Burrowes
Those were poignant moments. The villagers of Assia have agreed to go back, in agreement with Bishop Porfyrios, to restore the crosses that have been broken and put them back in their place. That will be an important symbolic moment that says that this is a village where we care for our loved ones. In fact, when I went back in November, which was a motivation for this visit, they were saying, “How can we respect the living if we cannot respect the dead?”
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me make a very brief intervention. I hope that he will understand why, at this point, I am also keen to remind hon. Members of our visit to the south. For example, in Kivisili we also saw a willingness to put right some of the graveyards that were not in a satisfactory condition. The spirit he talks about relating to our visit to the north is also reflected in the south.
Mr Burrowes
We agreed to go across the whole island, so we visited Limassol, Larnaca, Dromolaxia, Kivisili and Kalo Choiro, as well as Afania, Assia, Genagra, Pigi, Peristerona and Nicosia. That was important. For example, we went to the Limassol mosque which, not long before we visited, had been partially burned by vandals. We were able to visit the mosque with Bishop Porfyrios and Imam Shakir, who were affirming their united support for a greater respect for religious and cultural heritage. The problem is not one of division or religious division—that is not a problem at all. They were saying that we can look at the issue of religious cultural heritage as one where we can respect religion, which can be a uniting, not dividing, force, to build confidence and trust for all Cypriots. I ask the Minister to support such confidence-building measures in areas of religious cultural heritage. Citizens from this country will be going to Cyprus to carry out such visits in the future.
This is a current issue, and there is a concern that it is not all positive. There are reports this week that the cemetery in the village of Trachoni in the north has been completely destroyed to make way for the building of a new police station. That does not help at all when we want to build a common future for Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and I ask the Minister to condemn that approach.
Mr Cash
Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to take another question which relates, as I understand it, to the refusal of the Turkish Government to recognise the law of the sea and the exclusive economic zone in relation to gas? That is a huge issue that raises massive questions about good faith.
Mr Burrowes
I was going to come on to that. The discovery of hydrocarbon reserves is a wonderful opportunity—a natural resource for the whole of the island of Cyprus—to help resource a reunited island. There are struggles in the region both with energy and finance, and that provides hope for a brighter future. That is why it is depressing that, at this time, Turkey is being provocative in bringing ships around to show an aggressive approach, and not fully recognising that this is a resource for Cyprus. Outside powers should not be trying to get their hands on it. As a guarantor power, Britain has responsibility for the independence of the island. This is a threat to that independence. I understand that the Minister for Europe has been vigorous in making representations, and I ask the Minister present to reaffirm that respect for the integrity of that resource for the benefit of the island, which offers real hope for the future—a dynamic that can happen now and can be assured.
This period could lapse into a vacuum period of six months where the talks are stalled, but we can make practical progress. In Famagusta, the fenced-off Varosha area has been looted, uninhabited and decaying for nearly 40 years. Will the Minister reaffirm what the Prime Minister has said—I am sure that he will want to do so—in response to my reference to this on behalf of other hon. Members? The Prime Minister said:
“We fully support all the relevant Security Council resolutions, including UNSCR550 and UNSCR789. We have raised this with the Turkish authorities”.
I urge the Government to continue to do that. The Prime Minister recognises
“that measures to build confidence between the communities in Cyprus can have great value in facilitating efforts towards a comprehensive settlement. We continue to encourage all parties to the Cyprus problem to develop such measures.”
Famagusta is one such area that can come under UN supervision and properly allow, in compliance with those United Nations resolutions, for the return of lawful inhabitants. Hon. Members believe that that would help to facilitate efforts towards a settlement. That does not need to wait for a settlement; progress can be made, as it can in the area of missing persons. There was a protest yet again last week by the relatives of missing persons. The relatives are still literally crying out for basic information about their loved ones, despite the great efforts of the communal committee for missing persons—work supported by the European Union, and by the UK taxpayer, too. Unfortunately, the whereabouts of those relatives are in the domain of Turkish authorities, in military bases and in Turkey itself. There must be compliance with the European Court of Human Rights judgments to allow the whereabouts of those missing people to be established.
It is important that we do not rely simply on the fact that the talks have stalled in the past six months, on what will be said, which is that we want to ensure that the Cyprus problem is resolved by Cypriots, and on the UN framework. Obviously, we want that, but we want to ensure that Britain takes its responsibilities seriously and that we as a Government step up our pressure on Turkey to recognise Cyprus when Cyprus has the European presidency. We also encourage Cypriots to step up and civil society to take a place where there are political talks and restore religious heritage and other things beyond that. We will be right behind them, supporting them every step of the way. We are doing that on behalf of British Cypriots and because of our historical responsibilities, so that we can, at long last, end the need for such debates in Parliament.
Dr Offord
While we were in Cyprus, the mukhtars in the north part assured us that they would continue with some of the reconstructive works that they had engaged in before we got there. That was a sign of great hope and a positive step during our visit, but will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received letters of reassurance from the mukhtars to say that the work will continue, which they assured us during our visit that they would provide?
Mr Burrowes
The words were positive. I have said that we need actions, not just words. It is disappointing that we have not yet had that practical confirmation from those authorities. We will pursue that. If the Foreign Office can help us to do that as well, that would be much appreciated, because we have laid the groundwork and now need to ensure that we carry on with it. We should now allow a lot of Cypriots to walk over the bridges that have been built, so that we can build confidence.
We are happy to talk about Cyprus a lot, but it is important that we do not have more debates about it in the present context of a divided island. We want to support and stand full square, throughout the House, for a free, reunited Cyprus. As the holder of the presidency of the EU, it should be free and reunited. We need that sooner rather than later.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). He is right. I belong in the elite group of people who have stood in Enfield, Southgate in a general election. He belongs in the even more elite group of people who have won in that constituency. I pay tribute to all colleagues who have joined us for this important debate, specifically my hon. Friend, who has a deep, consistent interest in this subject, which is a cause of great importance to a large number of his constituents and in which he takes an interest more widely.
Let me make a couple of points in response to specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, then touch on three themes that came out of the debate: cultural sites, missing persons and natural gas and mineral reserves, which were mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
The United Kingdom fully supports Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, and we will continue to raise those issues with the Turkish authorities. We urge Turkey to implement the additional Ankara protocol when we have a suitable opportunity to bring that to its attention. It is important that the European Union and Turkey find a way to make progress on this issue.
My hon. Friend was right to draw the attention of the House to this significant moment in the long history of Cyprus, because from 1 July until the end of this year it holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union. There are close links between our countries: Cyprus is one of only three EU member states in the Commonwealth; more than 80,000 British citizens live on the island; more than 300,000 Cypriots live permanently in the UK, many of them in Enfield and other parts of north London and across the country; a million British people visit the island annually; and 11,000 Cypriot students attend British universities. I strongly take on board the point that was made about our historical obligations and our contemporary interest in events happening in Cyprus.
Mr Cash
Will the Minister commit to looking into the question of the fraudulent title to land? Many thousands of English—British—people have land in Cyprus. I raised that matter when I visited. Will he commit to taking that forward, to ensure that there is a proper resolution in the courts so that these titles can be remedied?
Mr Browne
I will happily undertake to task the Department with looking into that. The Minister for Europe or I will write to my hon. Friend.
I have mentioned the three areas that I want to talk about in the five minutes available to me. First, on missing people, there are significant efforts to help families discover the fate of their relatives and give them the opportunity to bury them with respect. We understand that this is an important and sensitive issue for all Cypriots and recognise the need for it to be resolved. The work of the committee for missing persons is of great significance. Since its establishment in 1981, it has been one of the only institutionalised bi-communal committees in Cyprus. To date, the remains of 853 individuals have been exhumed from different burial sites located across the island and 321 remains of individuals exhumed within the framework of the CMP project have been identified through this process—255 Greek Cypriots and 66 Turkish Cypriots.
Of course, to complete its vital work the CMP must be granted access to all areas where it needs to excavate. I therefore urge all those in control of such areas, including the Turkish military, to co-operate fully with the committee. The Committee of Ministers responsible for the supervision of the Turkey v. Cyprus case in the European Court of Human Rights case has also underlined the need for Turkish authorities to take concrete measures in relation to the missing persons, and particularly in relation to the CMP’s access to all relevant information and places.
Secondly, the cultural heritage of the island, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate discussed at some length, is a sensitive area and the technical committee on cultural heritage, established in April 2008, has the mandate to work on improving the situation. The committee has developed an action plan to protect vulnerable buildings. It has already started work on some projects and hopes, with further funding, to be able to implement more of its plan. The UK Government strongly believe that respect for religious and cultural buildings is a key element in building trust between different communities, including through the preservation of churches, mosques and other buildings of religious and cultural heritage.
Thirdly, and finally—I am conscious that I am slightly skimming through these areas, but I know that hon. Members will want to hear the response to specific points—my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Enfield, Southgate mentioned the discovery of substantial gas reserves in Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone, which we regard as good news for the island. There has never been any doubt about the United Kingdom’s support for the right of the Republic of Cyprus to develop the reserves that lie within its exclusive economic zone. Along with the international community we have publicly stated our recognition of Cyprus’ sovereign rights to do so.
We welcome President Christofias’s saying that the gas reserves should benefit all the people living in Cyprus. We hope that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus will take further steps to demonstrate to Turkish Cypriots that they have a clear interest in the development of these reserves. We call on all parties to handle the issue in a way that does not undermine the settlement process and urge both sides not to escalate the issue.
I express once again, on behalf of the Government, my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for raising this subject and reiterate that the Government remain committed to seeing a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.
Dr Offord
Treading carefully, because this Government and no other Government apart from the Turkish Government recognise the northern Republic of Cyprus, will the Minister undertake, or give us assurances, that his Department will assist either the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus or hon. Members present in seeking assurances from the mukhtars in the north that they would undertake the work that we have described?
Further Education Loans
(11 years, 9 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
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I think that we last met in the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill—what a spectacular use of all our time that was. I hope to finish a little early to allow some of my colleagues to say a few words—in particular, the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden).
It is a great pleasure to have secured this debate on the last day of term—an important debate that, frankly, following the Minister’s announcements last week should have been held on the Floor of the House. However, as with the Government’s higher education policy, on which we wait in vain for a White Paper and proper scrutiny, the Government have a terrible fear of discussing their skills and education strategy—such as it is.
It is also a great pleasure to have in the debate the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who graciously visited Stoke-on-Trent a fortnight ago to see the excellent work done by Sara Robinson and her team at Stoke-on-Trent college. For a city such as Stoke-on-Trent, the debate is vital. As a report from the Centre for Cities think-tank revealed only last week,
“Skills are the biggest determinant of success for cities, and are critical to the life chances of individuals.”
We are a city with some of the finest craftsman and most skilled workers in the land, who produce objects of inestimable beauty, but we also need to up our educational and skills attainment levels and we expect Government partnership to help us to do so.
Thus far, sadly, we have not had the kind of support that we would like: the scrapping of education maintenance allowances was not helpful, while the botched introduction of higher education tuition fees has seen steep falls in applications to the surrounding universities of Keele, Staffordshire and Manchester Metropolitan. My fear is that some of the strategic thinking that was at work on higher education policy has also been at work in further education—not only the same model of lending, but the same insouciance about detail and accountability.
There are some crucial differences between the higher education sector and the further education sector. A system of loans is an entirely new approach to FE provision and the so-called deterrent factor seems more complex. The argument that up-front course fees can act as a deterrent to learning has some merit. The impact of debt is less clear. I was concerned about the piling up of debt by students moving from level 3 qualifications to higher education and facing a double whammy.
I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s concession in last Thursday’s statement that the Student Loans Company will now wipe the outstanding loan for access course students who go on to complete a higher education course. Perhaps the Minister could explain, however, why that offer does not apply to other level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, BTECs or advanced apprenticeships. The Minister must surely be concerned by his Department’s impact assessment, which suggests that up to 150,000 students might drop out of adult learning altogether.
Clearly, we need a larger evidence base and greater scrutiny of the proposals. Some 375,000 adult learners stand to be affected by the changes, of which a disproportionate number are women—often carers. At Stoke-on-Trent college in my constituency, 1,080 of the 1,780 affected students are women. That is why the £50 million bursary for vulnerable students is a welcome addition, although I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that money is being drawn from other learner support budgets. If so, could he tell us whether the negative impacts of removing the funds have been properly assessed?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. At Stoke-on-Trent, which is similar to Rotherham, he mentioned 1,800 students; in Rotherham and Barnsley, there are probably 3,000 students over 24 who could be hit by up to £4,000 a year extra, for the first time ever paying the full cost of their fees and having to take out student loans for further education. Does he agree that that will put people off and that it is perhaps the worst possible time to introduce student loans for further education, when people are worried about their jobs, their debt and how they are going to pay the bills?
Tristram Hunt
In Stoke-on-Trent and, I imagine, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, we have seen a fall in the number of those who are seeking to go on to higher education in local universities as a result of the increase in tuition fees to £9,000. Will we see the self-same fall among those who are seeking to go on to further education? That is exactly the wrong strategy to pursue in such cities, which, above all, need to upgrade their skills.
I also welcome Government recognition that there is a capital issue in FE with the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths, although it is not clear how that will prevent the cost differential between those more expensive courses and the cheaper humanity courses in a sustainable way. Again, we need more details.
Another difference between the higher and further education sectors does not stack up well for the proposals—the relative homogeneity of higher education courses in terms of length, the academic calendar, qualifications offered and the application process, compared with courses in further education, which can often vary in length, begin at different points and have much less obvious timings. To be generous, the Student Loans Company does not have an outstanding record of delivery even when administering the far simpler world of higher education loans. In the Minister’s response, will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the Student Loans Company can cope with that added pressure? We will certainly see the consequences in our constituency surgeries if the change goes wrong.
My greatest concern with the proposals, however, surrounds their financing. It is my understanding that the Government have estimated that only 40% of all level 3 qualification loans will get fully repaid. As my right hon. Friend implied, under the current policy, the Skills Funding Agency funds 50% of the cost of further education courses. There is a powerful case for not decreasing state support for further education on social mobility grounds—perhaps even more so than for higher education—but the Government have been clear that deficit reduction is part of their motivation. If only 40% of the loans are repaid, how would that represent a better deal for the taxpayer?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that there will be an in-built inefficiency if the numbers of students fall so substantially that the fixed costs of colleges are no longer adequately covered by student fees?
Tristram Hunt
That is precisely the kind of area that we will need to look at when considering how the loans play out. What we saw in the higher education loans system was all sorts of additions to the initial policy, as the Government sought to unpick the consequences. In the way that things have been managed, we simply do not have the data to appreciate what will happen.
We can be positive about many elements of the Government plans, but we need to thrash out the questions of the consequences: value for money for the taxpayers; whether the Government have a philosophical objection to public investment in skills, although we know how important they are; and some of the detailed practicalities surrounding last week’s announcement, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It would have been helpful to have had the discussion in the House, with more colleagues with FE colleges in their constituencies present to explore such major public policy changes.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) not only on securing this debate, but on the detailed, cogent and strong case he made that gave both an overview of the issue and the specific details from his constituency. This debate is necessary because, as has been pointed out, the Government have used negative resolution procedure to lay regulations on these loans without any debate or oral statements. This is the biggest change for a generation; it will affect 375,000 learners, and because of the way the Government have introduced the regulations, it will come into effect on 1 September which is before the House returns from its summer recess. That is why it is so important to have more details from the Minister today.
Further education colleges now have to make decisions about retaining courses and staff as part of a Treasury cuts-driven loans system—let us make no bones about it—that even the Department’s officials say will cover only 80% of the current learner cohort. I appreciate the concession that the Government have made in response to widespread concerns across the sector, and the personal diligence shown by the Minister and the Secretary of State on this matter. Those concessions, however, and the written ministerial statement, have only provoked further concerns of substance from all FE stakeholders, and I want to raise one or two of those points with the Minister today.
My hon. Friend noted that only about £20 million of the bursary money is new money, and the 157 Group has also drawn attention to that. Will the Minister say how the funds will operate, what flexibility he is going to give to colleges, and what extra administrative burdens that will place on them? Will he pledge to lobby the Treasury if the £50 million proves inadequate?
The chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education said that the loans system is new territory and creates uncertainty, and as we have heard, the Government have asked the Student Loans Company to administer FE loans as well. The SLC’s mixed record in such matters is well known. Will it have additional staff to administer the more complex FE structure, without the central processing mechanism used by UCAS in higher education? Will the Minister comment on the admission by his officials to stakeholders—I was present when it was made—that colleges may have to work with a paper-based system from the Student Loans Company for the first year because of the speed with which FE loans are being introduced?
The Government have promised to write off HE access course loans, but stakeholders such as Million+ are rightly concerned—as was my hon. Friend—that vulnerable individuals will shy away from taking up access courses in the first place. Will the Minister look at a potential broadening of the write-off, or at a grace period of perhaps three to five years for HE access students who, through no fault of their own but due to family circumstances or whatever, find themselves unable to get on an HE course immediately?
Loans are also to be enforced on adult advanced and higher apprentices to take out on an individual basis. However, the written ministerial statement made little reference to how that will work, or to the concerns voiced by the Government’s Commission for Employment and Skills about the potential reluctance of individuals and employers to participate. Why has the Minister so far not taken note of those concerns and those of Unionlearn? What consultation has he had with major employers involved in apprenticeship programmes, including the armed forces, about such reservations? Have his officials made an estimate of the number of adult apprentices who are at risk of dropping out if they are forced to take up loans on an individual basis? In a written reply, the Minister told me that he currently has no agreement with the Treasury to prevent it from clawing back unused loan funding if take-up is slower or poorer than anticipated. Will he undertake to obtain such an agreement before the loans are introduced next March?
As my hon. Friend and other colleagues have said, we need adult learners to continue to prosper and thrive, and not to be put off in places such as my hon. Friend’s constituency in Stoke, from improving their life chances and—this is important—from contributing to kick-starting growth in our local economies, something that we desperately need.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) on initiating this important debate. He and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) have spoken about skills being critical to cities. Do they therefore concur that the FE freedoms outlined in the “New Challenges, New Chances” report will give more freedom to employers to meet the needs and demands of the future work force, and are a positive step in the right direction?
Mr Marsden
That is probably more a point for the Minister than for me, but I will observe that freedoms are great but, as we know, the freedom to dine at the Ritz is not a very useful freedom. This measure must be seen in the context of extra administrative burdens that the FE loan system may place on colleges. In a way, that brings me to my final point. The devil is in the detail, and the Government will be judged on how they deliver this huge change to the further education system over the next 12 months.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) on securing it. He is right to say that it is timely and, to pick up on his first point, that we should have an opportunity to debate the issue at greater length. I have already made, and I will continue to make, overtures to create some space for such a debate when we return, not least because I am always happy to debate skills and further education. I do not say that those things are the Government’s only shining example of success—far from it—but they are certainly shining brightly. That is because we are determined to give FE colleges the freedoms and flexibilities that they need to become increasingly responsive to employer need and learner choice—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) referred to that.
Disraeli said that it is easier to be critical than to be correct. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central was not terribly critical and was correct to welcome the measures that have been put in place, which I shall mention in a moment. First, however, let me set the scene. With the new freedoms that I have given the sector, it is essential that further education is able to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to gain learning as a means of improving their prospects through progressive learning or access to employment.
When we debated the comprehensive spending review, I and my colleagues in Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—in particular the Secretary of State—were determined that our priority should be those who are most disadvantaged, either by an absence of prior learning or by their circumstances, and those to whom we could make the most difference in terms of further education. That is not to underestimate the significance of lifelong learning or second and third chance education. Indeed, in the same CSR negotiations we cemented and safeguarded the adult and community learning budget that had been threatened and—I am reluctant to say this—sometimes disparaged by the Labour party when in government. That safeguarding surprised some who had not anticipated that we would be so protective, but I believe in adult and community learning not only as a means of re-engaging people but because it adds to the individual and collective well-being of our nation. As you know, Dr McCrea, I believe in the promotion of the common good and would not do anything to inhibit the interests of the people.
To that end, we made it clear that priority would continue to be placed on basic skills, younger learners and people below level 3. When introducing loans, we limited them to people over the age of 24 and those studying for a qualification at level 3 or above. That was a deliberate attempt—more than an attempt; a deliberate policy decision—to prioritise the least advantaged, because in my judgment, it is the duty of the fortunate to promote the interests of the less fortunate, no less in government than in our personal affairs.
In net terms, around 10% of FE learners will be affected by the new loans, and as I have said, they will be older learners and people studying at level 3 and above. Notwithstanding, however, that that is a small minority of the FE cohort, I received representations over time, we conducted an impact assessment, we surveyed the sector, and we engaged in discussions with the 157 Group, NIACE, the AOC and others—the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) referred to them all. Those representations made it clear to us, and that analysis showed, that some kinds of learner might be, in the words of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), disproportionately affected by the prospect of loans. One has to be a little cautious, because similar evidence before the introduction of HE loans suggested a lower take-up than subsequently occurred. One therefore needs to qualify one’s doubts in those terms, but I do share the view that we needed to do more. Indeed, that was set out in the very good letter sent to me at the end of June by the hon. Member for Blackpool South, who has contributed for the Opposition. He identified four areas in which he believed that there was a particular issue and he put his case, as ever, very reasonably and fairly. Those four areas were essentially access to—
John Healey
When I came into the Chamber, the Minister said, “Are you here to pay tribute to my work?” I have been known to do that and I suspect that his hand has been forced somewhat on this question of student loans. Before he moves off the impact assessment and the research, is he not worried that that research showed that only one in 10 current students would definitely do their course if they were faced with having student loans as he is proposing?
Mr Hayes
Actually, if one looks at the impact assessment closely, it suggests that after clear communication of the offer, we will expect full take-up of the funding for loans. A very significant majority of people, when the circumstances of the loans were explained to them, said that they would participate. Initially, some were very likely to do so and some were less certain, but the number saying that they would participate grew as these things were explained to them. By the way, full take-up of the loans would be 90% of 24-plus learners studying at level 3 and above. We are therefore talking about a very significant majority of 10% of the cohort. That is where we are in terms of the overall FE numbers.
It should be borne in mind that the impact assessment was carried out before I announced the mitigation package, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South has referred. I was coming on to why we put that in place. A case was made about access to HE. It seems to me perfectly fair to argue that it would be unacceptable for someone to borrow to study an access course and then borrow again to study an HE course. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked whether we could look at the issue of timing. I think that we should and I will do so. I think that there is an argument for people who do not immediately progress to HE, but do so perhaps a year or two years later. We need to consider how we manage that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I will certainly look at it.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend the Minister care to tell us a little more about the £50 million bursary fund that is available over two years, because that is quite an important element of the mitigation and support package?
Mr Hayes
I am almost as excited about that as my hon. Friend. I will certainly come to it, because it is wonderful news. I have been asked to give more detail and I will in the time available. Let me just finish my point about the access-to-HE measures. They mean that anyone who goes on to HE will see their access loan written off. That is very important, as that route disproportionately contains people with poor levels of prior attainment; after all, that is why they are doing access-to-HE courses. They are often doing so later in life. There is also a disproportionate number of women and women returners in that group. That is very important, too. What we are doing is therefore socially regenerative; it is about social justice. All I do is driven by my passion for social justice. That is what those courses are about and that is why we have taken this action.
However, that alone, in my judgment, would not have been sufficient. That is why I wanted a bursary fund. The hon. Member for Blackpool South has asked how much of that is drawn from existing provision. About £20 million is completely new money. As hon. Members will know, there is some existing learner support money in FE. It is targeted at, for example, people with learning difficulties and disabilities. That will be made part of this bursary, but I do not anticipate that any learner will be worse off as a result of these changes. In other words, we are not displacing the interests of any group of learners. It is just more straightforward for colleges and learners to have these things in a single national bursary package.
I have always favoured the idea of a national bursary fund, by the way, so this is the fulfilment of another long-held ambition, framed by the discussions that I have had over many years with the sector, which argued that it would be a very effective way of allowing colleges to respond to local circumstances. They know their cohort best; they know their circumstances better than I ever could. We therefore need to build in a level of discretion to allow colleges to work with their communities, their learner base and their local employers to ensure that what they are providing meets the needs.
However, the point made from the Opposition side of the Chamber about how much discretion there will be was well made. I think that we should set down some criteria according to which we expect the money to be allocated and I will do so, having had discussions with the sector and bearing in mind—let us get the time scale clear—that the application period for loans opens in April 2013 for courses starting in August or September 2013. Therefore, although it is true that we will not have a chance to debate the matter more fully until this September, it is not happening until the year after the next academic year. The hon. Member for Blackpool South makes the point that FE colleges must plan and he is right. That is why we have done what we have now, rather than waiting any longer. I hope that the fund will address the issue of older learners, who were, according to the impact assessment, disproportionately risk averse in terms of loans. That is hardly surprising. Someone of 55 might perceive a 30-year loan in a rather different way from someone of 20 or 25.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister makes a very important point. May I welcome the cautious approach that he has taken in this area? Does he agree with me that at a time of recession, when we are trying to get our economy going, supporting adult learning is incredibly important for reskilling the work force and those who may find themselves out of work?
Mr Hayes
As I am the champion of apprenticeships, my hon. Friend would hardly expect me to disagree with that analysis. He is right that skills are critical to recalibrating the competences of our work force in a way that makes our economy more sustainable by making our businesses more resilient.
The bursary fund is exciting and new and will allow us to address some of the perfectly properly argued concerns of Opposition Members, but more than that, I wanted to accept NIACE’s proposal of a mid-life learning health check, so that we could look at people at the age of 40 and 50 perhaps and use the national careers service to gauge when and where they could study to upskill or reskill. That there is a need for that has been argued by the sector for some time, and we have taken it on board as part of this package.
On the issue of STEM, which was raised specifically, I take the view that tying capital investment to STEM is not only about growing capacity, but about pinning down the costs of those courses. It is often argued that the costs are so high because of the need to resource in order to deliver them. I will look at how we can be specific about that in the next FE capital round. We have already had a number of such rounds, and we will have many more, because it is vital that we invest in our college infrastructure. We have excellent colleges, such as the one that I visited in Stoke, when, as a result of the kindness of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I was able to take away with me an Arnold Bennett volume to read over my brief summer sojourn.
All of that represents responsiveness. It was developed after discussion with hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was certainly discussed with the sector. It is a considerable step forward. But I just say this. Our determination is to ensure that it is put in place efficiently and effectively, so there will be no paper-based system. This will be done properly. The Student Loans Company will get it right, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South urged it to do, quite properly. This is a fair package—a just package. It is a package of which we can all be proud. We should now move forward together with confidence to put in place loans and get rid of up-front fees—a point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central very generously made and that I would have made otherwise. We should do so in the spirit that has imbued all we have done; one of elevating practical learning by elevating those who teach and learn in our FE colleges, who change so many lives by changing so many life chances.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. I wish right hon. and hon. Members a very pleasant recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competition and Markets Authority
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I have decided to appoint Lord Currie as the chair-designate to the Competition and Markets Authority.
Lord Currie will commence his appointment in the summer which will be for an initial period of four years. His appointment as chairman will be subject to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill receiving Royal Assent and to scrutiny by the BIS Select Committee.
The appointment has been made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ code of practice (April 2012).
Lord Currie was chair of Ofcom from its inception in 2002 until 2009, dean of Cass Business School from 2001 until 2008 and before that deputy dean at London Business School.
He is currently chair of the International Centre for Financial Regulation and board member of Dubai Financial Services Authority. Lord Currie also holds a number of non-executive roles spanning academia, Government and the voluntary sector and sits as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords.
Lord Currie will be stepping down from his current non-executive directorships of Royal Mail, IG Group and BDO.
Green Technologies (UKTI/ECGD Support)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The 2010 coalition programme for government contained a commitment that:
“We will ensure that UK Trade and Investment and the Export Credits Guarantee Department become champions for British companies that develop and export innovative green technologies round the world, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel production.”
UKTI set out in its strategy “Britain Open for Business” how it would promote low-carbon exports; this includes a green export campaign that aims to build the UK’s reputation in the green and low-carbon sector and to promote this capability overseas. UKTI is embedding this campaign into trade work in all markets where there is a clear opportunity to do so.
The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), operating as UK Export Finance, has been engaging with companies and trade bodies based in the UK which are involved in the development and export of green technology exports. The purpose has been to ensure companies are aware of the support that is available to them from ECGD if they require credit insurance, export working capital finance, contract bond support or if their buyers require export credit loan finance. Through engagement with overseas project sponsors ECGD has also promoted the availability of export credit finance to help to influence them to purchase supplies from companies based in the UK.
This work by UKTI and ECGD is intended to assist UK exporters of low-carbon technologies and support them in taking advantage of international opportunities.
As to support for dirty fossil fuel energy production, “dirty” should be taken as referring to projects which produce pollution in excess of international environmental standards. The standards which ECGD applies are those set out by the OECD in the OECD Council recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence and are usually those of the World Bank Group. ECGD will normally refuse support for exports to projects that do not meet those standards.
The UK will seek to promote the strengthening of the relevant World Bank Group international standards to include limits on emissions of greenhouse gases.
Capital for Enterprise Ltd (Triennial Review)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The triennial review of Capital for Enterprise Ltd will commence during October 2012.
The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state.
BIS has agreed with the Cabinet Office that Capital for Enterprise Ltd will be one of the NDPBs for which the review will commence during the second year of the triennial review programme, financial year 2012-13.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.
Stage 1 will:
Identify and examine the key functions of the Capital for Enterprise Ltd and assess how these functions contribute to the core business of BIS.
Assess the requirement for these to continue.
If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate.
If one of these options is continuing delivery through Capital for Enterprise Ltd, then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”, which are: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.
If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through Capital for Enterprise Ltd then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.
The report of the review should be completed within six months from commencement, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Government Consultation
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
Today my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Minister with responsibility for business and enterprise, the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and I are announcing a new approach to Government consultations.
The civil service reform plan commits the Government to improving policy making and implementation with a greater focus on robust evidence, transparency and engaging with key groups earlier in the process.
As a result the Government are improving the way they consult by adopting a more proportionate and targeted approach. The new approach to consultation is based on making the type and scale of engagement proportional to the potential impacts of the proposal. The emphasis is on understanding the effects of a proposal and ensuring real engagement rather than following the same bureaucratic process.
This guidance therefore replaces the code of practice on consultation issued in July 2008.
This will mean that Departments will follow a range of time scales rather than defaulting to a 12-week period, particularly where extensive engagement has occurred before. Policy makers will need to give more thought to how we consult with people. The aim is to replace potentially unproductive process with real engagement with those who are affected—in some cases earlier consultation so groups can shape policy earlier in the process.
Consultation can take different forms but the expectation is that it will be “digital by default.” This approach will need to be varied for vulnerable or other groups whose access to information technology is limited, but it should mean that Departments can be more, not less, effective at reaching particular groups affected by policies.
The principles of the compact between Government and the voluntary and community sector will continue to be respected.
The new consultation principles will be promoted within Whitehall now, and the public will begin to see new guidance take effect after recess. In line with the principles of open policy making we welcome views on how the new approach should operate in practice. Copies of the new guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.
Money Laundering
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation on proposed changes to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and an impact assessment on those changes. The 2007 regulations implement the European Union’s third money laundering directive in the UK.
The proposals being taken forward will both reduce the regulatory burden on firms and make the UK’s money laundering regime more effective and proportionate. The amendments are, for the most part, intended to benefit UK businesses by removing from the scope of the regulations those firms that are not at high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing and by enabling UK businesses to take full advantage of simplification measures provided in the European Union (EU) directive.
The Government committed to a post-implementation review of the 2007 regulations two years after they came into force. This review was undertaken in 2009-10, in conjunction with the Better Regulation Executive. The review entailed an extensive call for evidence, meetings, conferences and interviews with stakeholders. The Government’s response to the review was published in June 2011 and contained a consultation on 17 proposals to improve the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime.
Following this consultation, which drew 72 responses and involved extensive engagement, the Government are taking forward proposals with a net annual benefit for businesses of £3 million.
The measures that will be taken forward are:
Extending the use of reliance: The Government will extend the permitted use of reliance, a mechanism by which a firm can rely on the customer due diligence (CDD) carried out by a different firm. This will minimise the duplication of CDD checks by the regulated sector and reduce the burden CDD places upon customers.
Exempting non-lending credit institutions: Only businesses that lend and advance money should be subject to the regulations. The regulations will be amended to exempt credit institutions that offer time to pay for non-refundable services, such as health and golf clubs. The Government do not consider that such businesses present a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, or that the global standards and EU directive require such businesses to be regulated.
Regulating overseas estate agents: Global standards and the EU directive require the regulation of estate agents because of the high money laundering risks in this sector. UK estate agents selling overseas properties will, therefore, now be within scope of the regulations.
Amending the fit and proper test: The “fit and proper persons” test is applied by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to decide whether a person is suitable to run a money service business (MSB). This test will be amended in the regulations to ensure that individuals who are not fit and proper cannot run a business which is at high risk of money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation of financing. This also ensures consistency with the financial action taskforce (FATF) global standards, the EU directive and the fit and proper test applied by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) under the Payment Services Regulations.
Right to appeal against HMRC decision: The Government will clarify the right to appeal, to ensure that individuals have easy and economic access to a fair hearing if they wish to challenge HMRC’s decision.
Regulatory enforcement measures: These measures support the Office of Fair Trading, HMRC and the FSA as supervisors in taking action to ensure compliance with the regulations.
A full explanation of the proposals being taken forward can be found in the Government’s response document and impact assessment. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
ECOFIN
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 10 July 2012. Ministers discussed the following items:
Economic governance—“two pack”
The incoming Cypriot presidency updated Ministers on the process to be followed for trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament on the “two pack” of economic governance proposals. The Parliament has suggested changes to the proposals. The Council confirmed that the general approach it agreed on 21 February would be the starting point for the negotiations: the first working-level meeting with the Parliament was scheduled for 11 July.
Revised capital requirements rules (CRD4)
The presidency briefed Ministers on progress made in trilogue negotiations, and expressed its wish to finalise the negotiations as soon as possible. It had already held its first trilogue and had scheduled further meetings very soon. It will aim to achieve adoption of both the directive and the regulation at first reading, though it acknowledges several outstanding issues requiring resolution—including the mechanism for member states to impose additional prudential requirements, remuneration policies, crisis management, sanctions, the balance of power between the authorities of “home” and “host” countries, corporate governance, and the powers of the European Banking Authority (EBA). The UK favours a full and faithful implementation of Basel 3 in the EU and member states having the flexibility to increase minimum standards in order to protect financial stability in their jurisdiction.
Proposal for Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive
The Commission presented its proposals for a directive, which the Council noted, and Ministers held a preliminary exchange of views. The presidency’s aim is for the Council to agree a general approach by December.
Presentation of the Cyprus Presidency Work Programme
The new presidency presented its work programme on economic and financial affairs for the next six months. It will prioritise implementation of recently adopted initiatives on economic governance, fiscal consolidation, strengthening the European financial services framework and accelerating structural reforms, as well as some tax issues. Ministers exchanged views on this: I highlighted the European Commission’s €15 billion upward revision to its June proposal for the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework, which was already unaffordable, and called for re-prioritisation of the EU budget. The Council took note of the presidency’s programme.
Follow-up to the European Council on 28-29 June 2012
Ministers discussed work required to follow up the June European Council discussions, on establishing what has been termed “genuine economic and monetary union” and a banking supervisor. On the latter, the Commission will present proposals, expected in the autumn: the Council held a preliminary exchange of views in advance of these. I intervened to welcome the European Council’s commitment to the integrity of the single market and to highlight the need to protect against its fragmentation—such as discrimination between the euro area and euro “outs”—and I pointed out that banking union makes sense for the euro area, as mutualised risk should be accompanied by mutualised control.
European Semester
The Council adopted the recommendations to member states on their economic and fiscal policies, and the specific recommendation on the economic policies of the member states of the euro area. As required by the “comply or explain” principle established by economic governance legislation agreed last year, the Council provided explanations of its modifications of Commission proposals and recommendations.
Ministers also discussed the European semester more broadly and suggested ideas for improving the process in 2013. The presidency called for further discussions at Council meetings scheduled for the autumn.
Spain’s Excessive Deficit Procedure
In a late addition to the agenda. Ministers agreed to extend Spain’s deadline to correct its deficit under its excessive deficit procedure. Spain will now have until 2014 to bring its deficit below the EU’s 3% of GDP reference value.
Other business
The Council agreed to recommend the nomination of Yves Mersch (currently Head of Luxembourg’s central bank) to the executive board of the European Central Bank (ECB). This recommendation will be submitted to the European Council for a decision, after consultation with the European Parliament and the ECB’s governing council.
Tax Policy (Consultation)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Budget 2012 announced a number of tax policy changes that will be subject to consultation. HM Revenue and Customs is today publishing the following documents:
High-risk areas of the tax code: the stamp duty land tax (SDLT) “transfer of rights” or “subsale” rules—A consultation on broad options to address SDLT subsales avoidance.
VAT treatment of small cable-based transport—A consultation on the introduction of a reduced rate of VAT for small cable-based transport.
The following consultations are due to be published during summer recess:
Life insurance policies: time apportioned reduction —A consultation on reform to time apportionment reductions reflecting a policyholder’s period of residence outside the UK.
Foreign currency assets and chargeable gains—A consultation on whether to introduce a rule requiring companies with a non-sterling functional currency to compute their capital gains and losses in their functional currency.
Details of these and other planned consultations are included in a consultation tracker, available from the HM Treasury website:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.
The tracker includes specific anticipated launch dates wherever possible, to help representative groups and others manage their engagement with the Government on tax policy development. Any changes to the dates mentioned above will be publicised on the tax consultation tracker.
Local Government Finance
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I am today publishing a consultation and informing the House of a number of steps we have taken to support our localism agenda and the important financial reforms we are delivering through the Local Government Finance Bill.
Business rates retention
The business rates retention scheme will enable local authorities to retain a proportion of locally collected business rates to help fund the services they provide, therefore creating a direct link between business rates collected and local authority income, and reducing local authorities’ dependency on central Government grants. The technical consultation document, also published today, sets out proposals for the detailed workings of the new business rates retention scheme that is to be introduced from April 2013.
The scheme will give councils a strong financial incentive to promote local business growth while ensuring that all local authorities have adequate resources to provide services to local people. Analysis undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government shows that the projected economic benefits of the new business rate retention scheme could add an additional £10 billion to national gross domestic product over the next seven years. And councils who succeed in growing their local economy get a direct boost to their coffers. This is not simply about redistributing the proceeds of growth—if these reforms lead to every council working as hard as it possibly can to help businesses thrive, then they have the potential to increase growth overall, which is good news for communities in as much as any increase in business rates means more money to invest in local services.
This publication follows the 2011 consultation on the proposals for business rates retention and extensive discussions on the proposals with the local government sector, as well as the associated statements of intent published on 17 May this year. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Library of the House. The consultation document, a supporting equality statement, a Plain English Guide to Business Rates Retention, a step by step guide and a revised pooling prospectus are also available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website and the Local Government Finance website at:
http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/brr/sumcon/index.htm
We look forward to receiving views on our proposals. The consultation period will close on 24 September 2012. We will then put forward our proposals for local government funding for 2013-14 in a draft local government finance settlement later this year.
Council Tax Information Letter
The Government also today issued a council tax information letter to local authorities to make them aware that, when considering applications from service personnel for second homes discount on their private properties, they do make payments on their UK or overseas service accommodation in lieu of council tax. This payment is paid to the billing authority where the service accommodation is located by the Ministry of Defence.
Council tax support
To support the planning of local council tax reduction schemes, and to provide clarity on our plans for secondary legislation, I have also published, on 16 July 2012, key draft regulations regarding the localisation of council tax support, as we said we would in the detailed statement of intent on regulations published in May.
Under the reforms set out in the Local Government Finance Bill 2012, local authorities will be required to make their own council tax support schemes by 31 January 2013. The draft regulations I published yesterday will ensure all local schemes contain any requirements prescribed by the Secretary of State, including provision of support for vulnerable pensioners, and also set out the requirements for a default scheme, which will come into effect if a local authority fails to make a scheme by the prescribed deadline.
The publication of these regulations in draft form is intended to give authorities and interested parties the opportunity to make any comments or ask questions on the process and the draft regulations, to ensure that the final versions will enable local authorities to implement the prescribed requirements or default scheme smoothly.
It is essential that local authorities press ahead now with developing their schemes. Schemes have to be agreed by the end of January 2013 and will apply from 1 April 2013. This means local authorities need to start consulting now to ensure they can give full consideration to the views local people express, and provisions in the Local Government Finance Bill make clear that the billing authority can consult prior to the Bill coming into force.
Parish and community cheques
Today we have published a consultation paper proposing the removal of an outdated rule that limits the ability of parish and community councils to use modern methods of payment. The rule requires all cheques and other orders for the payment of money to be signed by two members of the council. It applies to all parish councils in England and community councils in Wales, as well as some charter trustees in England. As the rule is contained in primary legislation the paper proposes that the reform should be implemented by a legislative reform order made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The paper sets out the robust yet flexible control framework that will take the place of the two signature rules; this framework has been developed by the local council sector. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to lay a draft order before Parliament in the autumn. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.
Local Government Pension Scheme
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, made a statement to the House on 20 December 2011 setting out principles to govern the reform of the local government pension scheme agreed between the Local Government Association and local government trade unions. These reforms are designed to ensure the scheme is sustainable and affordable in the long term, while at the same time being fair to both scheme members and local taxpayers.
I can now report to the House that the Local Government Association and local government trade unions have begun informal consultations with their respective memberships on new design proposals for the scheme to be in place by 2014, within the 19.5% cost ceiling agreed by the Government. A favourable outcome will be followed by a statutory, national consultation by the Government in the autumn.
Details of the proposals are contained in a joint statement issued by the local government trade unions and the Local Government Association which can be found at www.lgps.org.uk. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House.
Defence Materiel Strategy
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
A core element of the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is reforming its acquisition system to drive better value from the defence budget. This includes changes to the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organisation to ensure it has the structures, management and skills it needs to provide the right equipment to our armed forces at the right time, and at the right cost. This is essential to tackle the legacy problems in defence acquisition that led to cost and schedule overruns, and which have resisted previous reform. The people at DE&S work hard to provide battle-winning equipment, support and logistics, but the current system does not work for them, does not always support them, and is not delivering value for money for the taxpayer.
Over the last year, Bernard Gray, the Chief of Defence Materiel, has analysed the root causes of the current situation and identified three interlinked issues. These are: a historically overheated equipment programme, where far more projects were planned than could be paid for; a weak interface between DE&S and the wider Ministry of Defence with poor discipline and change control between those setting requirements for equipment and those delivering the programmes; and insufficient levels of business capability at DE&S for the scale and complexity of the portfolio it is asked to deliver. The result has been significant additional costs in the defence budget of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year, with money spent managing the consequences of delay rather than delivering maximum capability for the armed forces.
I was able to announce to the House on 14 May, Official Report, column 261, that we had finally balanced the defence budget. The MOD is now engaged in a process of transformation to deliver the behaviour-changing incentives and structures that will maintain the budget in balance in the fixture. The restructuring of DE&S is key to this process.
For decades the Ministry of Defence has wrestled with this issue without success, and it is clear that addressing it within current structures will be extremely challenging. Earlier this year, I therefore asked my officials to focus their efforts on considering the comparative benefits which could be derived from changing DE&S into either an executive non-departmental public body with a strategic partner from the private sector (ENDPB/SP), or a Government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) entity. The work done to date, suggests that the strategic case for the GOCO option is stronger than the ENDPB option. Further value-for-money work is under way to confirm this assessment. In the meantime, as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, I have decided that MOD should focus its effort on developing and testing the GOCO option further.
The work to determine value for money between the options will take place over the next few months, and in parallel we will begin development of a commercial strategy, engaging industry to hone our requirement. This work will support decisions later in the year on whether to proceed with the GOCO option and whether to launch a competition for the private sector management company to run the organisation. Provided that the further work demonstrates that the value-for-money case for GOCO over ENDPB/SP is conclusive, this will be followed by an investment appraisal that will test the GOCO against a public sector comparator, following which a decision on whether or not to proceed will be taken.
Individual Electoral Registration
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I am announcing today that the Government have placed the implementation plan for individual electoral registration (IER) in the House Library. The plan has also been published on the Cabinet Office website.
The aim of this plan is to explain how the new system will affect citizens and electoral administrators and how this change will be delivered. In particular, it outlines the timetable for the work and how this will be managed alongside other activities electoral administrators will have to carry out over that period. This plan has been developed in consultation with key delivery partners, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), the Electoral Commission (EC) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).
We have been working with stakeholders throughout the process of developing our proposals for IER, and have already consulted on the overall policy and the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, adapting our policy to reflect feedback from Parliament (notably the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on our proposals), the public, and other stakeholders. We piloted data matching last year with 22 local authorities. We will continue the approach of working with stakeholders throughout the delivery of this change, to ensure that we have assurance that the new service will work effectively on the ground before we go live in 2014.
Education Services Reform
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
We need to reform the way that local authorities and academies are funded for central education services. We have inherited a complicated system which can no longer support the rapid growth in the number of academies and today I am announcing proposals to make it fairer, simpler and more transparent from 2013-14.
Academies are responsible for a range of education services such as school improvement, audit and HR, that local authorities perform on behalf of maintained schools. Academies receive a grant (known as the local authority central spend equivalent grant or LACSEG) to fund those additional duties. This gives academies greater freedom to secure the right services for their pupils.
Local authorities and academies receive funding for these responsibilities separately and the current method of calculating how much money each academy should receive is convoluted and bureaucratic. We have to wait until every local authority tells us how much they plan to spend on services for maintained schools in their area before we can calculate the grants for academies. This means that academies can receive vastly different levels of funding from one year to the next and the rates tend to vary starkly across the country.
Moreover, as more schools adopt the freedoms of academy status, basing this grant on the amount spent by the local authority is increasingly incongruous. In two local authorities, for instance, all state funded secondary schools are now academies and the funding for education services needs to be brought into line with this significant shift in school provision.
Local authorities fund central education services from the money they receive for schools from the Department for Education, as well as from their general funding. The Government believe that money intended for schools should be given straight to schools themselves so that they can decide how best to spend it. That is why I announced in March that, from 2013-14, it will be compulsory for local authorities to allocate all of the money that they receive specifically for schools (the dedicated schools grant) directly to the maintained schools and academies in their area.
I am also proposing that the money that is currently paid separately to local authorities and academies for central education services should be replaced by a single grant. This would be allocated on a simple national basis according to the numbers of pupils for which they are responsible. The new grant would be paid directly to individual academies and to each local authority for all the pupils in maintained schools. The funding for these functions will be transferred from the Department for Communities and Local Government, to be administered by the Department for Education, and so I am consulting on these proposals alongside the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s consultation on the introduction of a business rates retention scheme from 2013-14.
Distributing this money on a clear and transparent basis will help to restore confidence in the system and will put an end to the dramatic year-on-year turbulence and national variation in funding levels. This will take us further in achieving our objective of raising the attainment of all pupils across the country.
I have also published the Government’s response to the consultation held late last year on the way that funding for central education services was removed from local authorities in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to reflect the transfer of responsibilities to academies. This sets out the steps we have taken to ensure that the amounts deducted better reflect the number of academies in each local authority over the two-year period.
Copies of these publications will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
British Council (Annual Report)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Copies of the British Council’s annual report and accounts for the 2011-12 financial year have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can also be found at the British Council’s website www.britishcouncil.org.
During the period the British Council received £180,500,000 grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Building Stability Overseas
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence, wish to update the House on the progress our three Departments have made in implementing the Building Stability Overseas Strategy (BSOS) that we launched on 19 July 2011. The BSOS is one of the cross-Government strategies adopted following the strategic defence and security review.
We launched the BSOS at the time of the Arab spring, which was a profound demonstration that genuine stability can only be achieved when societies have strong and legitimate institutions to manage tensions peacefully. The BSOS was the first cross-Government strategy on conflict issues. It sets out that it is in the UK’s interest to build capacities overseas that help prevent the conditions that lead to conflict before they develop; and to identify emerging crises early and to respond rapidly to prevent or mitigate them.
We have made good progress in implementing the new strategy since its publication. The BSOS has produced a range of different mechanisms that ensure that the different skills, perspectives and expertise across Government are brought together in an integrated way.
We have established new systems for early warning, to better identify rising risks. Senior officials from across Government meet regularly to systematically review and, if necessary, challenge the Government’s approach to selected priority countries.
We have increased the level of overall resources for conflict prevention in the tri-departmental conflict pool and are aligning the pool’s approach more towards upstream conflict prevention. I intend to place before the House details of proposed conflict resources allocations, through the conflict pool, for financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15 once the National Security Council has endorsed them.
Our aim is to ensure a clear fit between conflict pool allocations and the Government’s highest conflict and stability priorities. We have increased conflict pool funding for the middle east and north Africa region, aligning our work closely with that of our Arab partnership initiative which supports Arab-led efforts to build more open, prosperous and stable societies. We are increasing our support to Somalia and Pakistan, while continuing important commitments to the Balkans, the Caucasus and to the UK’s peacekeeping presence in Cyprus. Within the conflict pool, we have also created a new £20 million early action facility (EAF) to provide rapid funding for unforeseen crises or to address new opportunities for conflict prevention. The facility has already been used to support work on Syria.
For the first time, we have made conflict pool allocations across more than one financial year, increasing our ability to plan ahead, deliver better value for money and improve the impact of our work. We are strengthening the conflict pool’s focus on achieving results. Our reform programme will draw on recommendations from independent reviews this year by the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.
We commissioned an internal review of the tri-departmental stabilisation unit. The review concluded that there continues to be a clear need for the stabilisation unit. It will remain an important tool to help integrate the Government’s approach to conflict and to help build more stable states. We are working to implement the recommendations of the review, including strengthening the leadership of the unit and its oversight by our three Departments, moving the unit to a new location and driving value for money and efficiency changes (including headcount reductions).
Our development programme continues to prevent conflict upstream, supporting countries to make that vital transition towards a peaceful, stable and lasting future. Three-quarters of the Department for International Development’s (DFID) focus countries are fragile and conflict affected states. DFID is on track to direct 30% of UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) to such countries by 2014-15. In 2011-12 UK aid investments supported freer and fairer elections in four countries, helped 300,000 women to access justice through the courts, police and legal assistance and helped over 16 million people hold their authorities to account.
The UK can achieve a much greater impact to building stability and preventing conflict around the world when we work with others. We are well placed to do so, exploiting the UK’s established roles and networks at the UN, within the EU, NATO and other multilateral forum and with our traditional partners. We are working with the UN’s Department for Political Affairs to improve its capacity for conflict prevention. We have provided UK secondees to the European External Action Service conflict prevention team and we are ensuring conflict prevention features in EU budget negotiations. We are also engaging with a broader range of partners, including Brazil and South Africa. The BSOS has enabled the UK to remain at the heart of international thinking on conflict prevention. The London conference on Somalia in February was a good example of the way UK leadership can reinvigorate and galvanise international efforts.
We recognise that Government do not have all the answers and therefore we are seeking deliberately wider views beyond Whitehall to provide challenge and to ensure we access, reflect on and assimilate latest thinking. We have used the positive reaction to the publication of BSOS from NGOs and academics specialising in conflict to develop relationships further through joint initiatives.
The BSOS recognised the need to include the protection of women and children. I informed the House of the Government’s new initiative to tackle sexual violence in conflict on 12 June including the establishment of a new team of experts and an international diplomatic campaign during our G8 presidency in 2013. As well as directly supporting and undertaking investigations, this team will support upstream interventions by providing training to national authorities to strengthen their domestic response to rape and other crimes of sexual violence.
In post-conflict scenarios, holding those responsible for appalling crimes of sexual violence and removing the sense of impunity will contribute to the peace building process.
The new approach outlined in the building stability overseas strategy is already beginning to have real impact on way the UK tackles conflict and instability overseas. We have the tools in place and are now working on implementation. Addressing instability and conflict overseas is a sound investment in both our national interest and a better future for all.
Informal Health Council
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
EU Health Ministers met in Nicosia, Cyprus, on 10 and 11 July. The United Kingdom was represented at official level. The agenda included discussions on organ donation and transplantation, the health work force, and health security.
The meeting began with a discussion on organ donation and transplantation. This discussion was followed by a lunch debate on the health work force, centring on the priorities outlined in the EU’s action plan for the EU health work force. There was also broad consensus that the EU could support the pursuit of these priorities in member states by facilitating the sharing of experiences and best practices, but that member states alone were competent to define their own work force strategies.
Following presentations from the presidency, the Commission, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Greece, health security was also discussed, in particular risk and crisis communication strategies.
Boundary Commission for England (Reappointment of Deputy Chair)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I should like to inform the House that I have made the following appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:
The Honourable Mr Justice Sales re-appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for England effective until 30 June 2014.
Senior Civil Service Appointments (Correction to Parliamentary Answer)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I regret to inform the House that I have recently discovered that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to a commons parliamentary question (85074) on 15 December 2011, Official Report, column 882W, about off payroll senior civil service appointments to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).
I am now advised that the correct answer is that at the time of the question in December 2011, the Ministry of Justice had engaged nine senior managers working in senior civil service positions on an interim basis (deployed within the MOJ IT directorate). Within its executive agencies and non-departmental bodies, there were two senior managers engaged in a senior civil service position on an interim basis (one in the National Offender Management Service and the other in the Legal Service Commission).
Furthermore the answer described the process for the procurement of contractors and interims through a single managed service provider, Capita Resourcing Ltd. This was normally the case for the main Department and its executive agencies. However, it should have been made clear that the Ministry’s non-departmental public bodies have their own processes and are not obliged to use the Ministry’s single managed service provider. In addition, where the single managed service provider was unable to source specifically skilled individuals, then other providers are engaged.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Civil Litigation and Funding Costs)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
This statement amends the one I made on 10 July 2012, Official Report, column 20WS. The wording in relation to the sanctions under part 36 of the civil procedure rules (offers to settle), paragraph (i), contained a factual error, which has now been corrected.
On 24 May 2012, Official Report, column 94WS, I announced the Government’s implementation plans for the provisions under part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 relating to civil litigation funding and costs. The Government have now considered further advice from the Civil Justice Council and I can therefore set out further details of those provisions.
A regime of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) is to be introduced in personal injury claims, so that claimants conducting their case properly will not have to pay towards defendants’ costs if the claim fails. Rules will be drafted on the following basis:
i. QOCS will apply to all claimants whatever their means; there is to be no financial test to determine eligibility;
ii. Subject to the provisions below, claimants who lose will not have to contribute towards defendants’ costs (there is to be no minimum payment by a losing claimant);
iii. QOCS protection would be lost if:
(a) the claim is found to be fraudulent on the balance of probabilities;
(b) the claimant has failed to beat a defendant’s “Part 36” offer to settle; or
(c) the case has been struck out where the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action or where it is otherwise an abuse of the court’s process (or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings).
iv. The principles set out in part 36 of the civil procedure rules override QOCS, but only up to the level of damages recovered by the claimant;
v. QOCS protection would apply in relation to claims that are discontinued during proceedings (subject to iii(a) above); and
vi. QOCS protection would be allowed for all appeal proceedings as the requirement for permission to appeal controls unmeritorious appeals.
The Ministry of Justice is considering further the practicality of QOCS protection not applying to elements of a claim for personal injury that are pursued for the benefit of a third party (such as a property damage insurer or a credit hire provider) in respect of goods, services or indemnity provided by a third party to the claimant as a consequence of the accident.
The sanctions under part 36 of the civil procedure rules (offers to settle) are to be reformed on the following basis in order to encourage early settlement:
i. There is to be an additional amount to be paid by a defendant who does not accept a claimant’s offer to settle where the court gives judgment for the claimant that is at least as advantageous as an offer the claimant made to settle the claim. This additional sanction is to be calculated as 10% of damages where damages are in issue, and 10% of costs for non-damages claims;
ii. In mixed (damages and non-damages) claims, the sanction will be calculated as 10% of the damages element of the claim;
iii. However, the sanction under these provisions is to be subject to a tapering system for claims over £500,000 so that the maximum sanction is likely to be £75,000; and
iv. There would only be one sanction applicable for split trials.
The new rule on proportionality has been agreed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC), and the test is intended to control the costs of activity that is clearly disproportionate to the value, complexity and importance of the claim. The senior judiciary are considering revisions to the costs practice direction to give effect to the new rule.
Changes to the civil procedure rules (CPR) will be considered by the CPRC in the autumn, in order for the necessary changes to come into effect for April 2013. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with key stakeholders throughout the implementation stage and will also work closely with the senior judiciary on other aspects of Lord Justice Jackson’s reforms, which are due to come into effect at the same time. Updates are provided on the judiciary website at:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/review-of-civil-litigation-costs.
Prison Capacity Management
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
The Government are determined to provide a fit-for-purpose modern custodial estate that can deliver high quality, cost-effective and secure regimes that protect the public and reform prisoners. While the prison population temporarily rose as a result of last summer’s civil disturbances, since April it has resumed falling. New modern prison places in the private estate at HMP Oakwood and HMP Thameside have begun to come on stream so that we now have an opportunity to close some of our more expensive and superfluous prison places.
I am therefore announcing the closure of HMP Wellingborough which will see a reduction of 588 prison places.
On Friday 13 July the gap between the prison population and our useable capacity stood at 3,500 places. The prison estate in England and Wales has not operated with this degree of headroom since early 2011 and there is more unused capacity in the prison estate now than there was before the announcement in July last year to close HMPs Latchmere House and Brockhill, or prior to the serious public disorder in August 2011.
Capacity continues to grow with the number of available prison places planned to reach 91,600 by the end of the year. This will ensure that our operational capacity continues to take account of prison population projections in a way which meets the need both for greater efficiency and ability to support a strengthened focus on protection of the public and rehabilitation.
The closure of these places will provide estimated cost savings of over £10 million in annual running costs and avoid significant capital costs on refurbishment of up to £50 million in the next few years. We would expect to be able to absorb most staff displaced by this process elsewhere in the system and to avoid the use of compulsory redundancies wherever possible.
Judicial Pensions Reform
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
On 5 July the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to the House that the Government will be taking forward legislation to introduce changes to pension schemes for the NHS, teachers and civil servants.
I have been considering the necessary reforms of the judicial pension scheme (JPS) in line with these wider public service pension reforms. The JPS is a critical element of the remuneration offered to the judiciary. Nevertheless we must ensure that the pensions provided are fair, sustainable and affordable. Accordingly, I have written to the heads of jurisdiction today setting out my proposals that will ensure that the pension provision for judges compares fairly with that offered to others in the public service. They also meet Government expectations for reform. This will be discussed with the judiciary over the summer and I will come back to the House further on the final detail.
Detainee Inquiry
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
In my statement on 18 January 2012, Official Report, column 751, announcing the Government’s decision to bring the detainee inquiry to a conclusion, I said that Sir Peter Gibson, the inquiry chair, had agreed to provide the Government with a report on its preparatory work to date, highlighting particular themes or issues which might be the subject of further examination. The inquiry sent its report to the Prime Minister on 27 June 2012. The Government are now looking carefully at its contents and remain committed to publishing as much of this interim report as possible. I will provide a further update when the House returns.
Military Medals Review
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I have today placed a copy of Sir John Holmes’ interim review of the rules and principles governing the award of military medals in the Libraries of both Houses. The interim report brings welcome transparency to these arrangements. It finds that the overall approach is reasonably based. However, it also identifies areas where it is worth considering whether the rules could be applied with greater flexibility and transparency. It proposes ways forward to address some past grievances while maintaining the distinctive British tradition that military medals are hard earned. I hope this will help to draw a line under past campaigns and provide a more open decision-making process in future. I welcome the report and have asked Sir John to lead a second stage of work to make further recommendations using the principles he has proposed to implement his findings. This work will be completed as soon as possible in the autumn.
Special Advisers
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Listed below are the names of the special advisers in post at 17 July 2012, including each special adviser’s pay band, and actual salary where this is £58,200 or higher, together with details of the special advisers’ pay ranges for 2012-13.
The paybill for the period 2011-12 was £6.2 million1. This compares to £6.8 million for the period 2009-10 (excluding severance payments made at the general election to special advisers in the last Administration).
Appointing Minister | Special Adviser in Post | Payband | Salary if £58,200 or higher (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
The Prime Minister | Andrew Cooper | Within scheme ceiling | 140,000 |
Craig Oliver | Within scheme ceiling | 140,000 | |
Edward Llewellyn | Within scheme ceiling | 125,000 | |
Kate Fall | PB4 | 100,000 | |
Julian Glover | PB3 | 83,000 | |
Gabby Bertin | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Liz Sugg | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Patrick Rock | PB3 | 78,000 | |
Andrew Dunlop | PB3 | 74,000 | |
Rohan Silva | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Ameet Gill | PB2 | 67,000 | |
Michael Salter | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Ramsay Jones | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Claire Foges | PB2 | 63,000 | |
Alan Sendorek | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Shaun Bailey | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Laura Trott | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Isabel Spearman (p/t) | PB2 | ||
Alex Dawson | PB1 | ||
Deputy Prime Minister | Jonny Gates | PB4 | 98,500 |
Neil Sherlock | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Joanne Foster | PB2 | 65,000 | |
James McGrory | PB1 | ||
No. 10 Advisers | |||
Julian Astle2 | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Oily Grender3 | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Sean Kemp | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Tim Colbourne | PB1 | ||
Departmental Advisers | |||
Bridget Harris4 | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Veena Hudson5 | PB2 | 65,000 | |
John Foster6 | PB1 | ||
Matt Sanders7 | PB1 | ||
Veridity Harding8 | |||
Minica Allen9 | |||
First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs | |||
Arminka Helic | PB3 | 70,000 | |
Chloe Dalton | PB2 | 64,500 | |
Denzil Davidson | PB2 | ||
Chancellor of the Exchequer10 | |||
Ramesh Chhabra | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Poppy Mitchell-Rose | PB1 | ||
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice | |||
David Hass | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Kathryn Laing | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equality | |||
Fiona Cunningham | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Nick Timothy | PB2 | 65,000 | |
Secretary of State for Defence | |||
Hayden Allan | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills | |||
Emily Walch | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Giles Wilkes | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions | |||
Philippa Stroud | PB2 | 69,250 | |
Lisa Hunter | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change | |||
Chris Nicholson | PB3 | 80,000 | |
Katie Waring | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Health | |||
Bill Morgan | PB3 | 76,000 | |
Paul Stephenson | PB3 | 68,000 | |
Secretary of State for Education | |||
Dominic Cummings | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Henry de Zoete | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government | |||
Giles Kenningham | PB2 | 64,500 | |
Sheridan Westlake | PB2 | 64,500 | |
Secretary of State for Transport | Graham Hook | PB2 | 65,000 |
Victoria Crawfod | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | |||
Amy Fisher | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Simon Cawte | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for International Development | |||
Philipa Buckley | PB1 | ||
Richard Parr | PB1 | ||
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland | |||
Jonathan Caine | PB2 | 69,266 | |
Secretary of State for Scotland | |||
Euan Roddin | PB2 | 60,000 | |
Secretary of State for Wales | |||
Richard Hazlewood | PB2 | ||
Secretary of State for Culture, Media, the Olympics and Sport | |||
Sue Beeby | PB2 | ||
Guy Levin | PB1 | ||
Chief Secretary | |||
Julia Goldsworthy | PB3 | 74,000 | |
Will de Peyer | PB3 | 63,000 | |
Minister without Portfolio | |||
Naweed Khan | PB0 | ||
Leader of the House of Lords, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster | |||
James Marshall | PB2 | ||
Elizabeth Plummer | PB1 | ||
Flora Coleman | PB0 | ||
Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster General | |||
Henry Newman | PB2 | ||
Simone Finn (p/t) | PB2 | ||
Minister of State, Cabinet Office | |||
Martha Varney | PB1 | ||
Minister of State (Universities and Science), BIS | |||
Nick Hillman | PB2 | ||
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal | |||
Robert Riddell | PB2 | ||
Chief Whip (Commons) | |||
Ben Williams | PB2 | 68,000 | |
Chris White | PB2 | ||
1Includes salary, severance pay and pension contributions. 2Maternity leave cover for Polly Mackenzie. 3Maternity leave cover for Lena Pietsch. 4Covering work in the House of Lords. 5Covering work in the Department for Communities and Local Government, Department for Transport and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 6Covering work in the Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions. 7Covering work in the Cabinet Office, Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 8Covering work in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. 9Covering work in the Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. 10In addition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed Rupert Harrison (PB3, £80,000), and Eleanor Shawcross (PB2) to the Council of Economic Advisers. |
Special Adviser Pay Bands for 2012-13
The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2012-13 are as follows:
Scheme Ceiling £142,668
Pay Band 4 £88,966 - £106,864
Pay Band 3 and Premium £66,512 - £103,263
Pay Band 2 £52,215 - £69,266
Pay Band 1 £40,3 52 - £54,121
Pay Band 0 up to £40,352
DVLA Office Closures (Correction to Parliamentary Answer)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
There was an inadvertent error in the answer to the parliamentary question from Charles Kennedy on 9 July, [115811], Official Report, column 69W. The answer indicated that Bangor, Beverley, Chester, Dundee, Exeter, Inverness, Maidstone, Peterborough, Sidcup, Theale, Truro, and Worcester Local Offices would close on 30 November 2012. The date should have read 30 November 2013.
Vehicle Identity Check Scheme
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Department has today published a consultation paper on the future of the vehicle identity check (VIC) scheme.
The purpose of the VIC scheme is to deter the crime of vehicle ringing. Typically, this involves the theft of a car often of significant value, which is then given the identity of a similar car (make, model, colour etc) which has been the subject of an insurance write-off. The written-off car is obtained cheaply; its identity (vehicle identification number (VIN) and registration numbers) is then transferred to a higher value stolen car which, now apparently genuine, can be sold at market price.
Since the introduction of the VIC scheme in April 2003, around 717,000 checks have been undertaken and 38 confirmed “ringers” detected, at a cost of around £30 million to the motorist. About 75% of the checks were undertaken on cars which were seven years or older, which were written off because the cost of even small repairs was greater than the very low market value of the vehicle, often meaning that the cost of the check fell on the less well-off members of society.
Although it is felt that the scheme has become, unintentionally, an unnecessary burden to many honest motorists, the police feel that it is still the only deterrent to “ringers”. The scheme also enables vehicle purchasers to be aware that the vehicle they are considering purchasing has previously been a write-off and confirms that the vehicle identity has been checked and therefore provides some protection against purchasing a stolen vehicle.
I intend to consult on whether to retain, re-scope or abolish the scope of the VIC scheme in a move to explore whether fewer vehicles can be checked in the future in order to remove unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens, without jeopardising prevention of vehicle ringing.
The consultation documents can be found on the Department’s website. An electronic copy has been lodged with the House Library.
Red Tape Challenge
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Last November, the Department for Transport launched the rail transport theme of the red tape challenge—part of the Cabinet Office’s project to review all of the outstanding regulations currently on the statute book. Following a rigorous process of challenge, stakeholder discussion and public consultation, I am now pleased to be able to announce the results.
The Department put forward every secondary regulation relating to rail transportation for public discussion under the rail transport red tape challenge. Some 198 of these were judged still to be live with a further 23 being identified as already “lapsed or spent”. Of these 221, I propose to scrap, merge, simplify, amend or improve 88 (40%).
The detailed breakdown I propose is:
Keep | Improve | Scrap | Moved* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 129 | 28 | 60 | 4 |
Percentage | 58% | 13% | 27% | 2% |
* Moved regulations predominantly relate to another Red Tape theme and will be resolved in a different part of the Challenge. |
Among the measures being pursued, we intend to:
harmonise and simplify the process for obtaining an operating licence;
reduce regulatory burdens and costs on historic cableways;
merge a number of instruments to make regulations easier to understand; and
remove a significant number of lapsed or redundant instruments.
The full list of regulations, including further information on the actions we are intending to take, is available on the Department’s website at: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/gov-20111110.
Overall, this represents an important step forward in removing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Some elements of this programme will mark a major shift in the way the Department does business.
The outcomes also need to be viewed against the backdrop of the Government’s wider efforts to put an end to the micro-management that occurred under the last Government in relation to matters such as franchise management. Both our franchise reform programme and our Command Paper “Reforming Our Railways: Putting the Customer First” seek to transfer more decisions from Whitehall to the professionals who run our railways as part of our efforts to deliver a more financially sustainable and customer-focused railway.
The Department is already implementing the results of the roads transport red tape challenge (see: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/gov-20110520) and aviation transportation, the final transport theme, is now open for public comment until 26 July.
High Speed 2 (Consultation Update)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
On 10 January this year, I made a statement to the House announcing my decision to take forward proposals for a national high speed rail network following the completion of a major public consultation exercise.
On 29 May, the consultation responses were made available online. Subsequently, when it became clear that a small number of responses had not been published, my Department and HS2 Ltd reviewed how the consultation responses had been processed.
This review identified that 413 responses, amounting to less than 1% of the 55,322 responses received in total, had not been included in the part of the consultation response assessment carried out by the Government’s independent response analysis consultants, Dialogue by Design. The results of this analysis were summarised in their report published alongside my announcement of 10 January (“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Consultation Summary Report”). This report formed just one of the elements supporting my decisions, alongside other evidence including analysis of issues raised in consultation responses carried out by my Department and HS2 Ltd, as well as engagement with the public, MPs and other stakeholders through roadshow events, seminars, visits and meetings.
Of the 413 responses identified, six had been incorrectly marked as duplicates by Dialogue by Design. The remaining 407 were among those sent in by email to my Department rather than via the direct channels set out in the consultation document and were unintentionally not forwarded to Dialogue by Design for analysis.
My Department commissioned a supplementary analysis from Dialogue by Design which concluded that these responses
“do not provide any information that was not already included in the previous consultation summary report or would have made a difference to the substantive content or balance of that report”.
Inclusion in the original analysis would not have changed the substance of Dialogue by Design’s findings, nor affected the considerations which informed me in taking my decisions following the consultation.
All affected respondents will be contacted with these details.
Jobseeking (Additional Support)
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
The Government have a strong offer of support to help young people find work: the Work programme, the Youth Contract and measures such as work experience and apprenticeships.
We know that lack of experience in the workplace can be a fundamental stumbling block for young jobseekers. This is compounded in difficult economic times when the labour market is even more challenging for those seeking their first job.
I will test the impact of providing additional support to young people with a limited work history from the very start of their benefit claim. This trial has been jointly developed with the Greater London Authority.
Further information on the details of this scheme will follow in due course.
Workplace Pension Reform
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Later today I will be publishing the Command Paper “Government response to the consultation: Improving transfers and dealing with small pension pots, (Cm8402)”, along with an associated impact assessment.
From this month, the first savers will start to be automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes. This will help many people to start saving, or save more into a pension. But bringing more people into pension saving will increase the numbers of small dormant pots, which are created as people move jobs.
Our updated figures, set out in the impact assessment, suggest that around 50 million dormant pots will be created by 2050 if no changes are made to the current transfers system. This could significantly undermine the Government’s commitment to encourage pension saving if people lose track of their pots, and so miss out on valuable retirement income
We need to reduce the number of small dormant pension pots in the system, making it easier for people to keep track of their savings. This will also reduce administrative burdens for providers, supporting low-cost pension provision. We issued a consultation document in December 2011 which set out ways to deal with a proliferation of small pots, ranging from small changes to the current system to encourage transfers, to automatic transfers of small pension pots. I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who provided responses and participated in our workshops.
The overwhelming response to the consultation was that the small pots issue urgently needs to be resolved. The vast majority of our respondents agreed that an automated transfer system is the best way forward. Creating a system in which small pots follow people through employment is the preferred approach among savers, according to a recent survey by the Association of British Insurers. The Government’s analysis indicates that this option will achieve the most consolidation and generate the most administrative savings in the long run. We have outlined our preference for this approach in the Command Paper, ahead of essential work with all interested parties to firm up the policy and design an implementation strategy.
I will place a copy of the impact assessment in the House Library.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, as I am sure all noble Lords in the Committee are aware, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Designation of Features (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 9 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 Designation of Features (Appeals) (England) Regulations 2012.
Relevant document: 3rd 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, the regulations are required to be made prior to the commencement of the substantive designation provisions under Section 30 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
The purpose of the appeal regulations is twofold. First, they will provide a safeguard for individuals whose property is affected by designation decisions and, secondly, they will ensure that risk management authorities are accountable for their decisions and will be open to transparent, legitimate challenge from individuals about their actions. These appeal regulations provide the owners of designated assets with the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the initial designation of a structure or feature, as well as against subsequent decisions relating to applications to alter, remove or replace a designated feature or to cancel a designation. A right of appeal is also provided against the issue of an enforcement notice for contravening a designation.
The appeal regulations provide that the First-tier Tribunal will hear all appeals under Schedule 1. In order to maintain the credibility of the Act and the efficacy of the designation regime, it is important that the appeals mechanism is independent, efficient and comprehensive, and is a fair and cost-effective way of adjudicating any disputes. The process for bringing an appeal is governed both by these regulations and by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.
Perhaps I can explain the nature of the provisions. Physical defences, such as walls, embankments and natural features, are relied upon to deliver much of our flood and coastal erosion risk management. Whole communities often rely on these features and base their flood protection strategies on the assumption that they will remain in place and divert water. However, in the 2007 floods it was discovered—too late—that there were alterations to some of these third party assets and flooding resulted, for example in Sheffield and Chesterfield.
In the Flood Water Management Act 2010, provision has been made in Section 30 and Schedule 1 to allow the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to designate third party structures or features which affect flood or coastal erosion risk. Designation requires the owner to seek consent from the appropriate risk management authority before altering, removing or replacing the structure or feature.
These provisions are required to prevent uncontrolled damage or removal of structures or natural or manmade features of the environment that perform a flood or coastal erosion risk management function. Further details on the designation process, including appeals, can be found in the public information leaflet and the guidance document produced by Defra and laid for information with these appeal regulations.
The requirement to provide a right of appeal by way of these regulations is contained in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1. Section 30 and Schedule 1 were commenced in April last year in so far as they provide the power to make the regulations. The substantive provisions relating to the regime for the designation of structures or features cannot be implemented without the appeals regulations. The designation regime provides protection for and restrictions on private assets in the public interest. The appeals regulations provide protection for private rights affected by designation and it is a necessary balance that they do so. These appeal regulations are a necessary and appropriate statutory obligation. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.
Lord Greaves
I do not have a great deal to say about this on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The regulations, which the Minister has explained very well, come from the Flood and Water Management Act. I suppose this little gathering today allows a certain amount of nostalgia from some of us who were involved in the passage of that Act, as often happens with these orders. These are sensible and welcome provisions. Does this mean that the designation of features can now go ahead or is there anything else standing in the way before this process takes place? As the Minister said, it is a process that was found lacking as a result of the experience in 2007. It is welcome that the recommendation from Sir Michael Pitt’s mammoth report is now filtering its way—if that is the right word to use in connection with water—down the system and that we are now on the point of approving these regulations, which we certainly support.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, as I discovered to my cost 10 days ago, I am a property owner in an area that gets flooded and there may be something on my property that at some point might get designated, so I declare that from the outset. Clearly the instrument is associated with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which established a process where the Environment Agency, local authority or an internal drainage board could deem a structure part of the built environment if it was acting as a flood defence, even though it might not necessarily have been designated or constructed for that purpose. We have heard that from the Minister. This is a very positive and necessary step forward in protecting our flood defence assets across the country.
I certainly know from where I live down in Dorset, where the River Wey and its tributaries got deluged 10 days ago and we had extensive flooding, that the complex arrangements of culverts and of different parts of the built environment in the Weymouth and Upwey area are interfered with at our risk. I know that the Environment Agency has done various bits of work over the last 20 years to mitigate the risk and I do not think there is much it could have done about it given the quantity of rainfall. However, I am certainly supportive of wanting to protect those assets as long as property owners get some advice from the Environment Agency, local authority or internal drainage board as to what they are dealing with. I think that this designation process will certainly help.
The regulations aim to strengthen the existing standard of protection for flood defences for third-party assets and to allow local authorities and drainage boards to extend protection of those assets, so we welcome the instrument. It is an important part of establishing a more transparent and accountable way of protecting those defences. However, it will do little to recover the losses the community will suffer from the cuts to flood defence spending, which concern me. There have been cuts of 27% despite the fact that we know how valuable such an investment is—every pound spent on flood defences reaps £8 in investment. I am increasingly concerned about our resilience to flooding as we move into the winter. Certainly, in my area the Environment Agency tells me that it looks as if we might go into the winter with winter levels of groundwater. That makes us extremely vulnerable as we would normally expect much higher quantities of rainfall then. That is then set against a backdrop that I see in the Defra business plan for 2012-14 of a 7.5% reduction in staffing costs across the Defra family.
I do not want to see the Environment Agency losing any more of its staff around flood resilience. I already know from the flooding incidents 10 days ago that it was wrong-footed by a Met Office forecast, which meant that the south-west people were flown up to Newcastle because they thought the flooding was going to be in the north-east and not in the south-west. The people we needed on the ground to provide proper warnings and safeguards to us were, by and large, not there. That suggests that we are already at the most extreme end of our resilience in terms of staffing, and I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.
I welcome progress on the implementation of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations, however slowly they may come into force, and I welcome the establishment of the First-tier Tribunal for the appeals. I do not oppose the structure, which seems sensible. I understand that the designation process will be risk-based as well as targeted and that the designation decisions will be based on what the designation authority considers to be appropriate. Can the Minister therefore explain to us on what information and guidance provided to local authorities and internal drainage boards those designation determinations will be made? If there is to be a means to appeal such designations, there must be an assumption that sometimes those authorities will get the decisions wrong, so it is of the utmost importance that the Government make it absolutely clear how these bodies should make these decisions.
In conclusion, we do not oppose the instrument establishing an appeals process but we would like the Minister to explain briefly the guidance that will be provided to authorities to ensure that decisions to delegate flood defences as such are made according to clear guidance to ensure the number of appeals to the tribunal is kept to a minimum.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given to these regulations. Indeed, I think we in this House maintained near cross-party unanimity on the need for the Flood and Water Management Bill, which has become an Act. When we were discussing it, we recognised that it derived from adverse situations in 2007. I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord’s experience. He is not alone in having experienced flooding but I recognise that it is not a very pleasant experience, having suffered it once myself. I join him in acknowledging the role that the Environment Agency has played during these past few weeks. I have not heard a word of criticism of the way that it has performed and I would like to put on the record the gratitude of Defra and the Government for the role that the Environment Agency has played.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, challenged me on the staffing cuts that Defra has undertaken. He will know, as all noble Lords do, that the current economic situation has meant that the Government have had to look at ways of reducing cost. However, the key thing has been to try to maintain sharp-end capacity and that is certainly what the Environment Agency’s response to these recent events has shown.
As noble Lords will know, the strategy against which all these matters are considered is contained within the Flood and Water Management Act, flood management plans and flood risk strategies, with the lead local authority and the Environment Agency working together to formulate management plans. That was contained in the Act and forms the background against which actions will take place.
Tabled for the convenience of noble Lords are copies of the publication about the designation, which I recommend that they read, because they reinforce the thoroughness with which that has been undertaken. It has been published jointly by Defra and the Welsh Government. It provides the framework against which designation will be maintained and guidance for individuals whose property may be so designated, so that asset owners also have a guide.
The way in which noble Lords have welcomed the regulations is very satisfactory. My noble friend Lord Greaves asked: where does that place the substantive set of regulations? Following the passage of the appeal regulations and the notice regulations laid on 29 June, the whole set will come into effect. That will be very satisfactory and the process of designation can commence as a result.
Public Bodies (Abolition of Environment Protection Advisory Committees) Order 2012
(11 years, 9 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 Public Bodies (Abolition of Environment Protection Advisory Committees) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; 3rd 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, in moving the Motion, I shall speak also to the subsequent statutory instrument, to which we may speak if your Lordships wish. The two orders have been considered in conjunction with one another during scrutiny; hence I think it would be most helpful to refer to them together.
The orders are to be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. They will abolish the six regional and local fisheries advisory committees in England and the six environmental protection advisory committees in England and pave the way for more flexible, non-statutory engagement arrangements that can evolve and respond to the needs and delivery of environmental objectives.
Both sets of committees have provided valuable advice to the Environment Agency, and it will continue to need such advice. I thank all those who have been so engaged. However, we believe that a non-statutory approach to engagement could provide greater flexibility at a more local, catchment-based level. That will enable civil society and local communities to provide advice directly to the Environment Agency and to be involved and empowered to take the lead, where appropriate, on delivering environmental outcomes rather than continue the current focus on just providing advice.
As set out in the explanatory documents, in developing the successor arrangements, each of the Environment Agency’s six operating regions in England has produced an engagement model, with input from existing committees and through discussion with local partners. A broad range of interactions is proposed. The regional engagement models show the relationship between the various fora—from national strategy through to local action and delivery. The models are region-specific and flexible. They will evolve over time, based on continual review by the groups involved against environmental priorities, which may vary one from another. This will ensure that the models for engagement are the right ones, involving the right individuals and groups at the right time. The explanatory documents showcased studies on engagement approaches that are being piloted to ensure that we get the arrangements right in future. We also consulted widely on the future engagement arrangements, as required by the Act, and we have reported on the consultation.
In its consideration of the orders, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded in its fourth report of the 2012-13 Session that it was content to clear these draft public bodies orders within the 40-day affirmative procedure. However, it had two recommendations. The first suggested that,
“the Government re-consider the need for formal monitoring and evaluation of the successor arrangements which are put in place to enable interested parties to be engaged in the delivery of the Environment Agency’s objectives”.
I assure the Committee that my department and the Environment Agency have agreed a formal review of successor arrangements within two years of the committees being abolished. Ahead of that review, the Environment Agency will undertake stakeholder engagement to allow local, regional and national customers and stakeholders to comment on how the engagement approaches, as described in the regional models, have been embedded. Based on the views of stakeholders and customers, the focus of the review will be to ensure that the right engagement happens in the right place to achieve this local, regional and national buy-in, while adapting to local needs and priorities. The review will be an important reassurance that the regional models reflect the needs of stakeholders and customers in delivering environmental outcomes.
The second recommendation suggested that,
“without delay after abolition of the … Committees, Government and the Environment Agency put in place, and publicise, regular meetings with key regional stakeholders to strengthen the process of monitoring and evaluation”.
The scrutiny committee was concerned that, if approved, the orders would remove a statutory obligation on the agency to carry out consultation.
The Environment Agency’s remit, as set out in the management statement and statutory Section 4 guidance, published in accordance with the Environment Act 1995, makes it clear that the Environment Agency must work closely with a wide range of partners in the public, local community, private and civil society sectors. The statutory guidance and remit provide a clear requirement to engage and consult widely, which the Environment Agency already delivers on a regional level through, for example, the river basin liaison panels, local enterprise partnerships and various fishery forums.
With regard to publicising meetings and events with key stakeholders, the Environment Agency has developed and made good use of social media. It is anticipated that social media, along with traditional forms of communication, will be extensively used to advertise meetings and events linked to local engagement models.
I hope that noble Lords can see that we are ready for change. The committees have made a valuable contribution but we believe that the proposed arrangements will provide more flexible local, community and civil society engagement for both advice and delivery, and that this approach will have the ability to evolve to meet the challenges ahead. I commend the draft orders to the House.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the orders stem from the proposals in the Public Bodies Act, on which we had some extensive and interesting discussions— coincidentally, with the same Minister, and he did a sterling job on that Bill. We are now discussing just two groups of bodies: the regional and local fisheries advisory committees and the environment protection advisory committees.
The first thing that I can say may be considered to be a typical niggle coming from me, but I find some of the language used in these reports a bit over the top and I wonder what it all means. I think that I know what it means, because I look at the detail, but I still do not like the language. For example, page 4 of the explanatory document for the environment protection advisory committees order—the same language is used in the other one, too—states:
“Localism and Big Society agendas require the Environment Agency to more directly engage with civil society, the public and business. A non-statutory approach would provide greater flexibility”—
I understand that—
“and remove statutory constraints which would enable civil society and local communities to be empowered to take the lead where appropriate”.
I have to say that I find this language difficult to understand. I would be interested if somebody had to write an examination answer on what it means. I have spent a great deal of time, including struggling with the 450 pages of the Localism Bill, trying to understand what localism and the big society agendas really are and I am still struggling. I understand a lot of the detailed stuff which comes out allegedly as part of these agendas, but what it all means as an overall strategy is still a mystery hidden in the fogs of some of the upper echelons of the Government. However, the details here are much easier to understand.
We welcome the increased emphasis on catchment areas, which have always been difficult for public authorities to deal with, because they very rarely coincide with administrative and local authority boundaries. They are difficult to deal with, but, if you are dealing with flooding, the catchments are the most important of all.
The documents make it clear that the measures are not a matter of saving money or part of the cuts, and that the amounts being saved will come from, for example, the salaries of chairs of the bodies. I understand that existing staff resources will be redeployed to make sure the new non-statutory, flexible arrangements are fit for particular purposes. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that that is the case and that this is not a cost-cutting exercise? Page 7 of the first of the explanatory documents states:
“There are no overall savings from the abolition in economic terms”.
It then states that,
“it is expected that there will be a zero net cost /benefit associated with abolition”.
I am not quite sure why it says that, because I thought that cost/benefit analyses took into account non-economic terms as well, but never mind: if it is not a cost-saving measure and a matter of doing things better, that is okay.
The Minister referred to the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. I was not sure whether he was saying that the two-year review will take place. Perhaps he can clarify that or whether other arrangements will be made to make sure that monitoring and reviewing take place. On the recommendation that there should be regular meetings with the “key regional stakeholders”—I say that biting my tongue and making the words come out of my mouth—was the Minister saying that those meetings will take place or that they are not necessary because they will form part of the new arrangements anyway?
Finally, the Minister said that they will make use of social media. I think I know what social media are, but I am not sure that everyone tweeting each other all the time is the way to do this. Is he talking about more conventional websites and forums, rather than the frantic arrangements that one finds on things such as Twitter and Facebook, which seem to me not the media that should be used in this context? Perhaps I am out of date.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a shortly-to-be-retiring—I regret—member of the board of the Environment Agency. In that context, I thank the Minister very much for his remarks about the performance of the agency staff during the great difficulty of having four or five serious flood instances in different parts of the country at more or less the same time, which is, thank God, a pretty unusual event. I think that the agency delivered.
I also need to inform the Minister that to some extent I am here to represent my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury, who is chair of the Environment Agency and who apologises for not being here today. Much of what I say reflects his views although, as I am retiring from the board, I can also make my own remarks.
I welcome the changes. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already referred to the rather lengthy proceedings that the Minister had to undergo in his previous capacity during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill, which he no doubt recalls without great nostalgia. The order concerns the sole part of the Bill to which I did not object. That is because, in this instance, a statutory structure is not necessarily the best way to carry out partnership, share information and mobilise members outside the agency. It is important that the work of the advisory committees is recognised. The people who have served on them have given stalwart service and have tried to represent the interests involved in delivering environmental and fishery outcomes but also to feed back information from the agency to those bodies.
However, there are probably better and certainly more flexible ways to do that which are more nimble and able to move with the times. I have some slight sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of the more advanced forms of social media— I am not entirely in front of the curve myself on that—but, in this area, the social media used in their broadest sense are a useful means of communication about flooding but also in more day-to-day environmental problems in mobilising those who are interested from public agencies, private citizens and organisations. The response time for using social media is much faster than with more traditional methods of communication.
When Defra consulted on that, there was not a huge number of responses. Of those who responded, those for and against were more or less in balance. There was a distinct negative balance in the north-west—as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will be pleased to hear. That is not necessarily because they are more stroppy in the north-west. The agency has therefore taken steps to address the situation in the north-west, including a proactive use of social media. I think that it is true to say that most organisations in the north-west are now satisfied that the new forms of consultation will be an adequate replacement.
In my own area, which is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, the Environment Agency has developed from a situation a few years ago where it was not seen as the most user-friendly organisation to having much more constructive relationships with organisations involved in these fields. For example, people will know that fishermen are not necessarily the easiest people to engage with, particularly if one is from a public body, but the relationship between the agency and the organisations involved in fisheries in the south-west has become very positive on the salmon, trout and coarse fishing side. We have for some time had a fisheries forum. That will be built upon and the relationships at different, more local levels will replace the rather centralised operation of the advisory committees. The situation is similar with the rivers and the river trusts in the area. Indeed, I am aware that in some areas the river trusts are taking on some responsibilities from the agency.
The abolished committees, while they were useful, are likely to be replaced by something more positive that will deliver the environmental outcomes that we all seek, whether it is on the electronic consultation and social media side or, possibly more importantly, the overall engagement. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also objects to some of the conceptual terms in there, which I do not entirely dissent from. However, there is a degree of empowerment here. Bodies on the ground are taking responsibility in keeping the agency informed and being guided by the agency in dealing with incidents. For example, on rivers where there are not major flooding incidents, it takes first-line responsibility. That is quite important.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I wish to make it clear that it is not the process that I object to, it is the words used to describe it.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I probably share that view. However, the reality is that it allows more people to be engaged and to take responsibility. To that extent, I share the objectives of the Government. The only note of caution I introduce is that the processes of engagement, empowerment and partnership—all abstract terms but in day-to-day terms they mean talking to people a lot more and in a lot more detail and probably for longer than sending out signals from the centre—are time-consuming and therefore staff resources-consuming and, to some extent, money-consuming.
In other words, the big society—if one was to call it that—is not costless. In some ways, it may be more costly than more centrally directed activities and institutionalised responsibilities. At the worst end under the old system, a member of staff might well worry about the advisory committee a month before it is due to meet and write appropriate papers and probably get a decent outcome. However, this requires a year-long engagement with the bodies that are represented on those committees. So, from the point of view of agency staff resources, this does not really save money. I know its primary aim is not to save money but to come up with a better system but, nevertheless, the Explanatory Note suggests that some of the formal money will be saved. It will not be saved. It will be deployed in a more effective way and there will be, if anything, more pressure on staff than under the old system. Subject to that caveat and the fact that we will at some point review these proceedings and changes to see if they are working, I support the Minister in these orders.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I, too, support the orders. As ever, it is a delight to come back to public bodies orders and to reminisce about some of the Minister’s finest moments in the main Chamber working on that Bill. I am sure that he will recall better than I that when these bodies were discussed, my noble friend Lord Grantchester broadly welcomed the move to rationalise the system. At the heart of this is ensuring that stakeholders around fishing are properly engaged. That means not just the professional people and businesses that are dependent upon fishing and angling but the more than 6 million people who over the past two years have indulged in some form of freshwater fishing. This is an important issue for a large number of people.
My questions concern the two key areas. I pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose fourth report of Session I found extremely helpful in getting my head around these orders. I start with the issue of accountability, which, as the Minister said, is the main issue about which the committee had concerns. He reminded us that its recommendation was for the Government to reconsider the need for formal monitoring and evaluation of the successor arrangements, and I welcome what he said about reviews. This is a “big society” approach, replacing a fairly complex set of statutory bodies—regional quangos, if you like—with a different form of engagement with civil society in local communities.
There is a concern that, in the absence of a formal set of structures, there will be reduced accountability, and I am sure that the review will focus on making sure that that has worked well. I would be grateful for a little more detail about how the review might work; who it might be led by, whether that person will be independent of Defra and whether the report will be published and the process transparent so that we can properly scrutinise it here in Parliament. Answers to those sorts of questions now or later would be very helpful in giving us, and the limited numbers who responded to the consultation on these orders, some comfort around the welcome announcement that the Minister made regarding the review and the positive response that he has given to the Committee, which I very much welcome.
On effectiveness, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the need for effective local stakeholder engagement and partnership. It is clear that the money currently being spent on these sets of bodies—£225,000 and £192,000 respectively—is being reinvested in that engagement. I would be interested to know a little more about how that money might be spent. Perhaps unlike the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I am quite an enthusiast for communication through social media. Indeed, in the recent flooding incident, one of the things that was quite striking was that these days the telephone is a far less reliable form of communication because most of us no longer just have a telephone that plugs into the wall and is powered off the little bit of power that comes out of the phone line; most of us have wireless phones that depend on mains power. If you are going through a flood, for example, you turn off that mains power and then your phone does not work. One of the advantages of using social media is that for many of us they are run off our smartphones or mobiles. It is difficult for any agency to keep up with the changes that people make to their mobile phone numbers, but engaging with apps, Twitter and even Facebook seems to be quite an effective way of adding a bit of resilience as technology changes.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to my scepticism. Does he agree that for rapid dissemination of information—for example, that flooding is likely, has started or whatever—social media such as Twitter come into their own and are brilliant, but that for more considered consultation, people putting forward their views and so on, slightly less frenetic forms of social media that are not clogged up with 95% dross are a better way of doing it?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I certainly agree that if you need to get information out very rapidly, media such as Twitter are helpful, but in an emergency, cell broadcasting is the most effective because you can get to every mobile phone within a cell area. I think that the Environment Agency is looking at how that might be used.
I was going on to address the other point made about more sustained, ongoing stakeholder engagement. It is notable to look at how the really large commercial interests, the large retailers, are using Facebook, for example, to create massive communities of people around Facebook pages, particularly in the United States. Twitter is as good as the people you want to follow. If you choose to follow people who post only dross, you will get a lot of dross, but if you choose to unfollow the dross, you will get what you want. It is entirely up to you.
Without being distracted by the use of social media in these things, the more serious issue is to try to understand a little more from the Minister about how it might work. Will the money be spent on apps, webinars and tweet-meets? In particular, what proportion and how much will be spent on staff against this difficult fiscal environment and the pressure to reduce staffing costs? Will Defra monitor the staffing arrangements to ensure that there are enough people on the ground? Here, I might have common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We cannot solely rely on technology because some people find it difficult to engage with technology or, surprising as it may seem, do not even want to. Often, the technology can create the noise and the interest, and bring people together, but you still need people on the ground to engage with people and with that technology.
If the Minister can give me some answers about how the review would work and how this money will be reinvested, I will be delighted. Suffice to say that I do not want to oppose the orders. I am happy to let a more catchment-based and more community-based approach operate and see how it is reviewed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, again, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the welcome that they have given these two draft orders. I think that there is an understanding that this represents a new way of working and doing things better. It is not about saving money; it is about engagement and providing the opportunity for fuller participation. If my noble friend Lord Greaves found the section on civil and big society vexing in its use of language, I recommend to noble Lords that they read the Explanatory Memorandum. Although it has a rather stiff and starchy front, which they all have, when you get into it, it is full of useful recommendations.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I know that my noble friend clearly got beyond page 4 and got well into the subject, as I would have expected him to have done. It is a very useful document, which gives a lot of illustrations which will help to reassure noble Lords about what is involved. It is about getting people involved and facilitating engagement.
It also is about a new way of working on catchment areas. I saw a map of European catchment areas the other day and it is remarkable how catchments for the United Kingdom are so much more appropriate because we have such a variety of river basins, whereas some larger countries in Europe, such as Germany, have relatively few but substantial rivers. We have a large number of rivers and it is quite right that we deal with them on the basis of catchments.
I can reassure noble Lords that there will be a review after two years. We will review progress jointly with the Environment Agency against the high-level principles. Ahead of the review, we will engage with stakeholders to allow them and local and national customers to comment on how everything has gone. Through that process, we hope to inform the Environment Agency how the policy is going forward.
There was a certain amount of jesting about social media. I probably come half way between the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am certainly less familiar than the noble Lord with Twitter and such things. The Explanatory Memorandum contains examples of how social media are already being used. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to pages 42 to 45 for examples of what has already been developed. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned the engagement that has already occurred in the north-west. At yorkshirefishing.net, anglers had a two-hour online question-and-answer session with the Environment Agency’s fisheries and biodiversity team. Those are the sort of things which I see justifying the use of social media as means of engagement. I think that all noble Lords will recognise that, over time, their use will become much more customary and a part of the formal pattern of things.
My noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, wanted to examine where the money would be used. No savings are being made here, but some money will be able to be redirected. That will be used to support the new England and Wales Fisheries Group. This group will monitor further changes needed for the regional models to be able to engage the right people at the right time. The money will go back into the kitty. It is anticipated that some further resources may be needed to support engagement. For example, the Environment Agency in the south-west has committed funding to provide a local angling development board and an angling development officer. Those are useful examples of the recreational opportunities which such engagement will provide.
I hope that the further reassurances that I have given will ease the way towards the next and final stage of the process, which started some 21 months ago. To this end, I commend the two orders to the Committee.
Public Bodies (Abolition of Regional and Local Fisheries Advisory Committees) Order 2012
(11 years, 9 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 Public Bodies (Abolition of Regional and Local Fisheries Advisory Committees) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, is not able to be present just this minute. The Grand Committee therefore stands adjourned until 4.35 pm.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2012
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 14 June and implement changes to legislation, now required under EU law, to ensure that UK financial services and commodity trading firms are able to bid in auctions of emissions allowances in the UK and across Europe. It is important that the UK allows these firms to bid in auctions of emissions allowances to maintain London’s position at the heart of the carbon market, of which it currently enjoys an 80% global share.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme was the world’s first and largest international scheme for the trading of greenhouse gas emissions and is at the heart of the UK Government’s policy to tackle climate change cost-effectively. It is estimated that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will deliver emissions reductions of 3,100 metric tonnes of CO2, relative to 2005 levels, between 2013 and 2020. Across the EU, it is predicted to deliver emissions savings of 21% below 2005’s verified emissions by 2020. There will also be a dramatic rise in the level of auctioning. This is in line with the market-based approach of the scheme and best ensures the efficiency of the system.
As the system moves to a greater level of auctioning, it is important to ensure confidence and integrity in it and in the way that auctions are run, so the EU regulatory framework for auctions has been strengthened and introduces common EU standards for regulating certain bidders in the auctioning of emissions allowances. It is up to each member state to implement this framework in accordance with its own national laws. This includes requiring certain bidders in the auctions to be authorised by national authorities: for the UK, that is the Financial Services Authority. To minimise administrative burdens, these regulations apply only to banks, investment banks and credit institutions when wishing to bid in auctions on behalf of others, and to commodity traders when bidding in their own right or on behalf of others. Under the EU rules, eligible participants in the EU ETS will be able to bid directly, subject to meeting certain admission requirements, without FSA authorisation. However, it is likely that financial institutions will provide an important means for operators to enter the market where direct bidding is not practical or desirable.
Implementing these changes will result in the Financial Services Authority gaining powers to authorise those financial services to bid in auctions of emissions allowances across Europe. To achieve this, the regulations amend secondary legislation relating to FiSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act, and make minor amendments to the Act itself. Minor amendments to domestic anti- money laundering legislation are also required. We have considered the impacts of these regulations on business and have minimised costs to UK financial institutions by ensuring that, for such firms, we meet our obligations and no more. We consulted on our approach in the usual way and received no substantive responses. In addition, the regulatory policy committee has scrutinised and approved these changes. The FSA has also consulted on its regulatory approach, including any fees and compliance costs applying to those wishing to bid. Again, it received no substantive responses.
It is important to note that only those financial services firms wishing to bid in auctions of emissions allowances will be subject to these regulations and need to be authorised by the FSA. Firms will therefore seek authorisation to bid only if they consider that it will provide a financial return to them.
It is important that we make these legislative changes now, before the first auctions of phase 3 and aviation emissions allowances begin. The first UK auctions will take place in November this year, subject to EU approval. Germany and the European Commission have also indicated that they will begin auctioning allowances after the summer on their own platforms.
In summary, these legislative changes are required by EU law so that UK-based firms can participate in auctions of emissions allowances across Europe and provide services to others wishing to buy allowances. The changes are necessary to preserve London’s position at the heart of, and leading, the developing carbon market.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, what a joy it is to discuss with the Minister, after a fairly contentious issue last night—namely, the Government’s Finance Bill—this instrument, a measure that is not only uncontentious but is in fact welcomed by the Opposition. I agree with the rationale that he has given both for the necessity of the measure and the benefits that it will bring regarding access to the auctioning of greenhouse gas emission allowances.
We have one or two questions that I am sure that the Minister will be more than ready to answer. Is he as surprised as I am that, from what one can gather, the consultation, which, admittedly, ran for a very limited period, heard from only one respondent? This must surely be some kind of record. It indicates either that the measure is beyond reproach in every way—the answer that the Minister will certainly favour—or that it presents a limited opportunity. Small and medium-sized enterprises do not appear to think that they have much opportunity under the order. Does he have any comments to make on that?
I would be interested to see just how the Minister evaluates the significance of the measure in the Government’s overall objectives regarding climate change. Not only do we share those objectives but we are keen that the Government continue to sustain the policy to hit the targets that have been established for a considerable time now. I note the urgency of the situation, given that European auctions are taking place in the fairly near future. That is required under EU law and it is only right that the measure is before us. We give it our fullest support.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for making sure that our afternoon is not quite as exciting as the close of business last night. I thank him for his support for the measure, which is, rightly, seen not only as uncontentious but as supportive of this important area of policy development. In response to his question about the consultation, I can tell him that it lasted for eight weeks. I believe the lack of substantive responses is a reflection that this is a very simple measure, which simply extends the requirement of authorisation to firms if they want to continue to operate in the EU auction process as it moves into this new phase 3. I am not at all surprised or in any way concerned by the lack of substantive responses. As the noble Lord says, there was one, but I believe that it was pointing out something in the grammar or the spelling of the rules, which it is important to get right—I know that your Lordships’ are always very keen, as respondents to consultations are, to make sure we get the grammar right.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Is the Minister confessing that the Government were wrong and the respondent got it right?
Lord Sassoon
I do not actually know whether the respondent got it right; all I know is that that was the issue that came up.
On the noble Lord’s point about SMEs, I do not see it in the way that he sees it. Principally, this is a sophisticated market—trading in emissions is not something that the man or woman on the street would do. We are talking about, on the whole, sophisticated commodity trading firms or large financial intermediaries, so the measure is not targeted at SMEs directly. They will be the ultimate users and beneficiaries of the broad emissions system being put in place, but they are not likely to be players. On the other hand, if they want to be players, as the impact assessment set out, the costs of going through the registration authorisation process are not onerous.
On the noble Lord’s last point about how the order fits within the objective of meeting the climate change targets, I confirm what I said in opening. This Government, like the previous Government, are keen to see a market-based solution as far as possible to meeting the targets—the emissions trading system and auctioning very much underpin the market-based approach. In that context, this is a small additional measure to make sure that the auctioning element of this construct is properly regulated. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s questions.
Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am pleased to confirm to the Committee that from 1 October 2012 our intention is that it will no longer be lawful to provide inferior goods, services or facilities, or simply to refuse to provide them at all, because of a customer’s age. This includes public services such as health and social care. Unjustified age discrimination is already prohibited in the workplace. After extensive consultation and deliberation over recent years and by different Administrations, it is now time to complete the task and end such discrimination in the provision of services. We are doing this by implementing the prohibition on such discrimination in the Equality Act 2010, which had cross-party support during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Alongside the prohibition on unjustified age discrimination I am pleased to present this draft order, which contains necessary exemptions to it. With Parliament’s approval, this order will come into force on 1 October 2012, alongside the prohibition.
I turn now to the specifics. Harassment and victimisation related to age will be banned without exception. However, concerning discrimination itself, we need to ensure that the new law prohibits only harmful or unjustifiable discrimination because of age. It should not outlaw the many instances of justifiably different treatment. Nor should it have the practical effect of ending such treatment. The draft order therefore sets out a number of targeted exceptions to the ban on direct age discrimination. They add provisions to Section 195 of—and Schedules 3 and 16 to—the Act under the power contained in Section 197. Those exceptions specify particular types of age-based actions, measures and practices that we consider to be justifiable, beneficial or needed for sound public policy reasons. The exceptions will provide legal certainty for both service providers and customers. Extensive consultation on that issue in 2009, and again in 2011, has helped us to decide where exceptions are needed and what shape they should take.
I will now briefly run through the exceptions in order. The specific exception for immigration in Article 2 allows immigration officers to continue to consider age when determining a person’s eligibility to enter and remain in the UK. For example, it would permit the continuation of the youth mobility scheme, which allows young people aged 18 to 30 to come to the UK for a limited period to experience life here and perhaps earn some money.
Article 3 allows financial service providers, such as banks and insurance companies, to continue to use age to determine, for example, the products and prices that they offer. Financial service companies need to factor age into their products and prices, because people of different ages carry different risks. The most obvious example is that of insurance. However, the exception is qualified because it requires any risk assessments related to age to be based on relevant information from a source on which it is reasonable for the provider to rely. We know that some older people, in particular, are concerned about access to insurance, so we have also endorsed a voluntary agreement by the insurance industry to improve that. The agreement started on 6 April this year and commits insurance companies to signpost customers to different providers if they cannot provide cover. It also commits the industry to show how it prices products by reference to age.
On concessionary services, Article 4 is probably the widest ranging exception and one particularly welcomed by small business. It allows any service provider to offer a concessionary service based on age: for example, enabling a hairdresser or someone who owns a fish and chip shop to continue to offer discounts for pensioners.
Article 5 is an exception for age-related group holidays. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I touch on our overall approach to applying the prohibition to the holiday sector. We have taken the view that the provision of holiday accommodation, be it a hotel, chalet or rented cottage, should not be treated differently to the provision of other mainstream goods and services such as shops and restaurants. For example, while a hotel or cottage owner could offer discounted rates to pensioners, taking advantage of the exception in Article 4 which I previously described, they could not refuse to let rooms or their property to adults aged under 25 or 21 without showing sufficient reason—for example, evidence that their property had been damaged by younger people in the past. I refer to younger adults because the ban does not protect children, so hotels and restaurants can still lawfully have a “no children” policy from 1 October.
Our proposed treatment of some holidays, as opposed to holiday accommodation, is somewhat different for a particular reason. Rather than applying to holiday providers as a whole, the exception in Article 5 addresses the specific and limited circumstances of package holidays designed for people in certain age groups. In other words, it applies where mixing with people of a similar age is a key element of the product and its enjoyment. For example, when the product includes travel to the holiday destination, accommodation and activities during the vacation, this would qualify as a “relevant holiday service” for the purposes of the exception. Noble Lords may recall that this was an exception called for by several noble Lords in this House during the passage of the Equality Bill in 2009 and we have been convinced by those arguments.
Article 6 covers age verification schemes, which are used by retailers selling age-restricted products when they challenge customers where there is a doubt that they are not old enough to purchase the product. The exception allows this to continue so that retailers can, for example, ask for proof of age before selling products such as alcohol or cigarettes. This new exception was added following the last consultation.
Article 7 covers residential mobile homes in which people live as their main residence, but not holiday lets. This exception recognises that there is an important quality of life issue for people who want to live among others of a similar age group in contrast to the transient nature of holidays. It accordingly allows operators of residential park home sites to continue to include age limits in their park admission rules and other arrangements in respect of the sale and occupation of pitches and mobile homes.
Article 8 inserts a new exception into Schedule 16 to the Equality Act allowing, for example, golf clubs to offer concessions to members above or below a certain age or based on length of membership. Article 9 permits the use of age restrictions in sport, where many events are classified according to age bands at local, regional, national and international level. It obviously makes sense to allow such age banding to continue.
As well as the specific exceptions in this order, the Equality Act contains a statutory authority exception, which allows differential treatment based on age where this is required or allowed by statute. For example, exceptions to charges for prescriptions and eyesight tests based on age are provided for in legislation, as is the age of entitlement for the state pension and things such as free bus passes.
Exceptions are not the only means available to service providers wishing or needing to treat customers differently on the basis of age. Under the Act, it will be possible for service providers to justify treatment that would otherwise amount to direct or indirect age discrimination. They can discriminate where they can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That is the legal wording but, less formally, this test is known as objective justification.
I gave an example earlier of a holiday cottage owner not wishing to rent to very young adults because their cottage had been damaged by such people in the past. Another example of objective justification might be a car rental company that has had several of its cars written off by drivers aged under 25 or over 75. It could decide not to rent cars to people in those age groups or perhaps to charge them a little more. It could seek to justify that by pointing to the need to reduce road accidents generally and particularly those caused by its clients. It might also, for example, argue that it needed to run its business efficiently. Whatever case the company might make, it would need to demonstrate how the remedy adopted was proportionate to the aim. If someone then took the company to court for not renting them a vehicle or offering them a vehicle on less favourable terms, the court would have to decide whether the company’s actions were legitimate in all the circumstances.
There is widespread acknowledgement that we need to do more to address the growing evidence of poor or inferior treatment of older citizens by the health service and in social care. That is not of course to say that all who work in these sectors are discriminating in this way, but a series of recent reports have exposed existing shortcomings. Therefore, there are no specific exceptions from age discrimination for health or social care.
The ban is not the whole answer. The NHS and the social care sector are making great strides to improve the experience of older customers, in particular, but where things continue to go wrong the ban will provide a valuable new means of redress for patients. Therefore, whenever different treatment is proposed or provided for patients because of their age, the health or care provider will have to objectively justify it, if challenged. I believe that this meets our intention to eliminate harmful age discrimination in an area where the greatest concern has been expressed. At the same time, we are preserving the ability to use age factors where it is right to do so; for example, in targeting cancer screening on the age groups most at risk.
This legislation is targeted, fair and proportionate. We have consulted extensively on it. The vast majority of businesses and organisations will be able to continue to operate as usual, and certain areas will be exempt from the ban altogether. The new law prohibits only harmful or unjustifiable treatment that results in genuinely unfair discrimination because of age. It will not outlaw the many instances of different treatment that are either justifiable or do not give rise to harm. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very good explanation of this rather straightforward order. The order arises out of the Equality Act 2010, which my noble friend Lady Royall and I took through the House before the general election. There are two areas that I want to explore.
We welcome the implementation at last of Labour’s age discrimination legislation and the fact that that the Act will come into force in October. What preparatory work is being undertaken to explain and publicise this important legislation and which government departments are involved in its implementation and rollout? Is it, for example, BIS or the DWP? Is support being given to employers and employees? Perhaps the Department of Health—to which I will return—is involved as well. Who is leading on the preparation for rollout of the legislation in October? Is it the Government Equalities Office or the EHRC? What quantum of resources might be applied to it? The impact assessment, which came with the helpful notes accompanying the order, explains what the impact might be on businesses, charities and voluntary and public sector bodies; it does not say what resources might be put into explaining and promoting the legislation.
I welcomed the Minister’s mentioning the Government’s awareness of issues relating to discrimination in health services, because, even at Question Time today and as the Minister will know, a noble Baroness mentioned that older people with depression are not being offered talking therapies because of their age. The breast cancer charities produce enormous amounts of evidence that suggests that older women with breast cancer are routinely undertreated.
Are the Government still refusing to implement the dual discrimination provisions in the Equality Act which will make it easier to challenge the multiple layers of discrimination that older people face, such as the toxic combination of ageism and sexism? The Secretary of State said on 15 May that there would be a delay to the commencement of the dual discrimination provisions. What does that mean? How long is that delay going to be? When can we see orders which implement those provisions, or an intention to do so?
During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Minister’s colleague, Lynne Featherstone, put down an amendment which suggested that the Bill be implemented within six months of its passage, because she did not trust what might happen after the general election and she feared that the party elected, if it was not sympathetic, might not implement it. The Minister will be pleased to know that a combination of my then right honourable friend Vera Baird and her honourable friend Mr Harper persuaded Ms Featherstone that this was not necessary and that the Bill would be implemented, albeit perhaps with a delay—as is the case.
I turn to the orders in front of us today. Of course we welcome them; why would we not? They directly arise from commitments given during the course of the Bill in February and March 2010. There were serious discussions during that period with Saga, Age UK and organisations that provide financial services about what those exceptions should be. The continuing consultation seems to have covered most of those points. My only question about the consultation arises from the fact that Age UK mounted a campaign objecting to the proposed specific extension of financial services, because in its view that would continue to perpetuate the culture of ageism. What is the Government’s view of that campaign? The 17 campaign letters received from Cornish self-catering holiday home workers seeking a specific exception to ban young people from their accommodation have my total sympathy, when one hears about what young people get up to in Cornwall after their exams.
We welcome this measure. We think it is important, and I hope that the Government are going to put resources into supporting organisations and people during its implementation in October. During the debate in March 2010 there was cross-party agreement in the House about these exceptions, and I think that the Government have covered all the issues that needed to be covered. My only questions are about its implementation, resources and publicisation, and ensuring that all the people who should know about this will know about it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the great deal that has been achieved. I have memories of the heavy support for Saga initiatives and so on, which clearly have been very well handled subsequently.
I have a specific question about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I happen to have been seeing the commission about another matter today, and as a result have received some comments about the articles that we are discussing. My general question, and I will back this up in a minute with a specific one, is whether the Government have had more recent detailed discussions with the EHRC and made certain that it is satisfied. I am thinking particularly about Article 4, “Exceptions for concessionary services”. The commission says:
“In its 2011 consultation response, the Commission noted that the exception for general beneficial concessions was limited by a test of reasonableness. The exception also contained a requirement that the concession (or more favourable term) did not have the effect of preventing persons of other age groups from requiring the services. However, in the version of the Order currently before Parliament”,
apparently,
“both these limitations have been removed”.
The commission, having analysed Article 4, advises that,
“as currently drafted, the exception may fail to meet the policy intention of the exception, as stated by the Government Equalities Office in its 2011 consultation paper: ‘The exception will not, however, allow concession to be a deterrent to people who do not qualify for them or unreasonably to inhibit access to the service concerned by those outside the target age group’”.
The commission says that:
“There is a risk that, as currently drafted, the exception could be used to create artificial pricing structures designed to exclude older (or younger) people from access to particular services”.
A number of examples are given, including a fashion retailer which wishes to maintain a younger customer profile. It inflates its prices for clothing while offering a 50% discount for the under-30s, thereby allowing them still to pay reasonable prices.
As regards my main point, have the Government had discussions? Is the Commission reasonably satisfied, from its independent perspective of not being part of a government department—its independence is crucial to the way in which it operates—with what the Government are doing? Have the Government at least explained why they are doing things in a specific way? Has the Commission accepted that as the Government’s right?
Baroness Hussein-Ece
First, I declare an interest as a commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I also wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Verma for very comprehensively setting out the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (Age Exceptions) Order 2012. She took us all the way through the order. I welcome the order and, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the Commission has also welcomed it.
Noble Lords might recall one of the key recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s very successful inquiry into older people and human rights in home care, which quite recently received widespread publicity. In that work, there was a specific call for the ban to commence as soon as possible in order to tackle the problem of ageist attitudes and unjustifiable age-based discrimination in this sector, some of which we know has been endemic and harrowing.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I recognise that the legislation should allow for some types of age differentiation to remain lawful. However, as has been explained in response to some of the consultations last year, we have concerns about some of the exceptions—for example, Article 3 and the financial services. Obviously, we all have concerns about the financial services. That exception could be seen to have been cast rather widely in that it refers to the whole sector as well as covering all transactions and interactions between customers and service providers.
As drafted, the exception would make it difficult or impossible to challenge some types of age discriminatory treatment. I understand that these things happen; for example, a bank may decline someone over the age of 75 applying for a credit card or making another type of application. Given this exemption, presumably a bank still would be able to do that. How would such a 75 year-old have recourse to that treatment? Could that be redressed under this provision?
Another example might be that of an insurance company making a decision about someone at the other end of the age spectrum, someone aged under 25. When insuring young people for driving a car, we know that many insurance companies tend—I will not use the word discriminate—to make it more difficult or charge higher prices for those under the age of 25. What safeguards may be in place to address these points?
I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about information to ensure that service providers, employers and the general public are made well aware of these new provisions, as well as of their rights under the new Act.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome to the order and for giving it reasonably easy travel. However, a number of points have been raised so I will deal with those first. If I do not manage to satisfy noble Lords today, I will undertake to write a fuller response and get a copy placed in the Library.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked how the Government were preparing service providers for implementing this order from October. There is going to be tailored guidance, which is prepared by the Home Office and the GEO, and we hope that it will be published within the next week or so. It will be tailored to specific sectors. The Department of Health will be providing its own guidance to the health service and to its employees, and Her Majesty’s Treasury will issue guidance related to the financial services sector.
The noble Baroness asked about dual discrimination and other delays. At this moment, we do not have plans to implement dual discrimination. This position, and its feasibility and potential burden on businesses, has been and is being reviewed in the course of our Red Tape Challenge initiative. GEO will be leading on this implementation plan, so we will be the lead within the Government taking this forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked if the EHRC had concerns about Article 4 on concessions. We do not believe so. We have simplified the exception, but on the basis that it would not undermine access to the service for age groups not the subject of a concession. We consider it highly unlikely that providers would introduce a warped pricing system just to exclude a particular group. After all, shops, cafes and places like that are there to maximise their take on monetary value and are hardly likely to deprive themselves of valuable customers in that way. She also asked whether we had discussed Article 4 with the EHRC and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece clarified that position—yes, we did. We have had discussions on the consultation with the commission throughout, as with other groups. We have not had any recent discussions with it but we have not been made aware of any opposition that it may have to the order.
My noble friend raised the point that the financial services exemption was too broad. I suspect that my response is not going to satisfy her on the question of credit cards, and we may have to come back with a bit more detail on that one. However, in most cases the problem is not that people cannot access insurance; it is that they do not always have the information about other alternatives. That is why the insurance industry has entered into an agreement with the Government to improve signposting and transparency to ensure that no one is left without access to an insurance service. However, they need to comply with responsible lending practices as well. Their entire business or individual services may be part of the market in which they have particular expertise. The example that comes to mind straightaway is Saga.
On the whole, the order covers most of the concerns raised by noble Lords. We agree on principle that older people—indeed, people of all ages—have to be treated fairly and that there should be no deviation from that principle. Equally, however, we know that we want some preferential treatments, such as free bus passes and discounts for older people, to continue. On that basis, we are confident that the combination of these exceptions and the discrimination ban will keep a balanced approach in what the Government are trying to do.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
NHS: Primary Care Trusts
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to prevent primary care trusts inappropriately restricting access to patient treatments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, it is inappropriate for a primary care trust to impose blanket bans on treatments, or to restrict access to treatments on the basis of cost alone. The department will ask strategic health authorities to investigate any examples of such behaviour, and appropriate action will be taken.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, I remind the House of my health interests in the register. The noble Earl will be aware that there is now abundant evidence that some primary care trusts are restricting treatments that are deemed appropriate, in some cases against the guidelines issued by NICE. Given that, will he go further and seek to ensure that he and his ministerial colleagues intervene in the NHS where this is happening so that we can be satisfied that the NHS will still provide a comprehensive service?
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes, we will intervene if ever it is demonstrated that primary care trusts are restricting treatments on a blanket basis or on a cost basis unrelated to clinical need. Any arbitrary restriction on access to treatment of that kind is unacceptable. We have made that clear repeatedly, as has Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, on a number of occasions. However, that is not the same as saying that the NHS should be unconcerned about value for money. It should be very concerned about it. It should not spend money on treating a patient when that patient is unlikely to derive clinical benefit from the treatment. Therefore, we need to distinguish that kind of case from the kind cited by the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, will the noble Earl find out to how many cases the PCT in North Yorkshire has denied treatment in the past year? Is he aware of how distressing it is for very ill patients to have to appeal?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not have the figures for North Yorkshire in front of me but, as the noble Baroness is aware, there is a process for patients to make an exceptional case application to their primary care trust where the circumstances are deemed to be exceptional. We had a short debate about this matter the other day. However, there will inevitably be variation around the country in the extent to which treatments are seen as a priority for the local population in a given area.
Lord Winston
My Lords, it is a question not just of treatment but of investigations for treatment. Only last week, I saw a couple complaining of long-standing infertility who were refused a laparoscopy or an X-ray of the uterus on the grounds that they were not permissible as investigations under the National Health Service. It was limited by their primary care trust. Would the noble Earl care to comment on that?
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, given that there is no consistency in the name that PCT committees are calling themselves to make these judgments about treatments and pathways, and often these matters are reported or hidden in longer performance reports, can my noble friend ensure that PCTs are open and transparent in their decision-making on these treatments, including referencing how their decision reflects NICE guidelines, and also insist that the appeals process is equally accessible?
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords, we emphasise this principle at every opportunity. Indeed, transparency is a central principle, as my noble friend will be aware, in the way that the NHS constitution instructs the health service to make decisions rationally and transparently so that patients can see the basis on which those decisions have been arrived at. Again, if that is not happening in any area I should be very glad to hear about it.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lady Masham, is the Minister aware that the particular primary care trust in North Yorkshire has refused the funding for an operation for a bright young lady doctor who is enrolled on a training scheme in that area and who turns out to have a rare hereditary form of pancreatitis? Three surgeons, two in Newcastle and one in Leicester, have agreed as a team to operate on her, otherwise the condition will be progressive and eventually fatal, but the primary care trust has refused funding for the procedure on the grounds that it is somewhat experimental, even though it has been carried out successfully on a number of occasions before. Is this not a case that ought to be referred to the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
Thank you, my Lords. This is an unfortunate Question in that it tends to imply that this system is widespread. However, my experience, admittedly only in one hospital in Cambridge —Addenbrooke’s Hospital—is quite the contrary. I do not know just how much my noble friend can comment on whether access for patients has been restricted nationally, but I would very much like to ask him to make sure that this Question is not a common reflection on the National Health Service and hospital service. I do not think that it is.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The Co-operation and Competition Panel undertook a review of restrictions on patient care last year, and although it uncovered quite a number of examples of arbitrary rationing, those were cases that took place under the previous Government. We have banned all such cases. We do not believe that this kind of arbitrary restriction is at all widespread, and we have yet to receive any firm evidence that it is taking place at all.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the widespread feeling of disgust and disappointment at the Government’s decision to close the ECMO cancer unit for children at the world-renowned Glenfield Hospital in Leicester. Is he aware that the quality of work done at that hospital has been praised internationally, and that many thousands of people in Leicester, Leicestershire and beyond are just appalled at the Government’s insensitive and brutal decision?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am aware of the concern that the noble Lord has reflected in his remarks, but I think that it would be wrong of me to comment. That particular decision flowed directly from a review which was conducted by the NHS, quite consciously at arm’s length from Ministers. The matter is currently under scrutiny and I would not wish to pre-empt any decision that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to take.
NHS: Mental Illness
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report How mental illness loses out in the NHS, published by the London School of Economics and Political Science on 18 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we agree with the report’s insistence on both the importance of investment in mental health services and on the necessity of treating mental ill health as seriously as physical ill health. Our mental health strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, makes our commitment to these principles clear, and we are soon to publish an implementation framework that will help to embed them in NHS practice.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I remind the House that during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill it was agreed that mental health should have the same, equal status as physical health. In that light, at present the 50 outcomes of the NHS outcomes framework include no health outcomes for the millions of people with clinical depression or crippling anxiety disorders. Do the Government have any plans to change that and, if so, when will they change it? When will we see mental health outcomes appear in the outcomes framework?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have deliberately taken a generic approach to the NHS outcomes framework. That said, the framework for 2012-13 contains three improvement areas relating specifically to mental health: premature mortality in people with serious mental illness; employment of people with mental illness; and patient experience of community mental health services. Therefore, the noble Baroness is not quite right in what she has just said. Many of the indicators in the outcomes framework relate to all patients, including in relation to safety incidents, for example, or experience of primary care. Improving outcomes for people with mental health problems will be a crucial element of success.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, five out of the six recommendations of this excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and his colleagues emphasise the importance of IAPT, an excellent initiative begun by the previous Government, which is being built on by the coalition Government. However, from the time of the previous Government to now, I continue to receive reports that psychotherapy departments, particularly those that provide non-cognitive behaviour therapies such as art therapies, psychodynamic psychotherapy, group analytic psychotherapy and family therapy, are closing down or are unable to get contracts. Can my noble friend help me to understand why that might be the case since, while CBT is valuable and helpful in many circumstances, it is not the only approach to treatment that has been demonstrated to be helpful in those who need psychological therapies?
Earl Howe
I am very happy to take the advice of my noble friend, who is of course an expert in this area. Historically, it is true to say that access to talking therapies in the broadest sense has been very poor. That is why we have invested £400 million in rolling out the IAPT programme, which makes available a range of NICE-recommended therapies to a much larger cohort of people. However, I will take my noble friend’s point away and, if I can throw any light on the issue that he has raised, I will gladly write to him.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I, too, commend the report. What action would the Minister expect in response to two of the recommendations that relate to training? First, there is the recommendation that an automatic component of general practice training in future should include mental health. Only a minority of GPs currently receive any training in mental health. Secondly, with respect to the current recruitment crisis in psychiatry, it is recommended that we recognise that psychiatrists have an essential leadership role to play in mental health care.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as regards GPs, the Royal College of General Practitioners has identified improved care for people with mental health problems as a priority within its enhanced GP training programme, which forms part of the college’s proposals for a new evidence-based four-year programme of training.
As regards the workforce issues, I am aware that there is concern about recruitment into psychiatry. My department and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are looking into this matter. The royal college has established a task force to make recommendations to improve recruitment, and it is investigating the factors before medical school, during medical school, during foundation training and in core and higher psychiatric training so as to get to the bottom of the issue as best it can.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, one of the important recommendations in the LSE Centre for Economic Performance report, which led to this Question, concerns the attitude of other doctors to psychiatrists and the issue that that has in relation to recruitment. The report says that,
“it is routine for”,
surgeons and physicians,
“to make derogatory remarks about psychiatry, which affects not just psychiatrists but also their patients”.
I wonder whether the noble Earl has any answer to that.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, is the noble Earl able to deal with two blatant forms of age discrimination? The first is that the talking therapies are very often denied to older people; pharmaceutical alternatives are cheaper. The other is that, when a diagnosis of dementia is made, the way in which services are organised now means that those services have to be funded by local authority social care rather than the NHS. Given that dementia is a terminal disease, does the noble Earl not feel that this is unfair?
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes, and we have laid great emphasis on the need to bear down on unreasonable discrimination against elderly people. The noble Baroness is aware that the requirement to reduce inappropriate anti-psychotic medication for the elderly is a key part of the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge. Therefore, I identify completely with the remarks of the noble Baroness on that issue.
Social Care: Sustainable Funding
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will announce their plans for sustainably funding adult social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government set out their plans for the funding of adult social care at spending reviews. The date of the next spending review has yet to be announced. At the last spending review the Government prioritised money for adult social care, announcing an additional £7.2 billion over four years. When combined with an ambitious efficiency programme, this will provide enough funding to enable local authorities to maintain current service provision.
Lord Warner
I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that publishing a White Paper about adult social care without a funding plan is as much a work of fantasy as Fifty Shades of Grey, but without the fun of sex? Do the Government recognise that the longer they delay implementation of the Dilnot commission’s proposals—and here I declare my interest as a member of that commission—the greater will be the social care cost that shifts to the NHS, which has its own funding problems? Starting that implementation will cost around one-thousandth of annual public expenditure, as Andrew Dilnot has repeatedly said. Is it not time that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor engaged with this issue within cross-party talks to try to sort out the funding problems of adult social care?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we look forward to a continuation of the constructive cross-party talks that have taken place. We have been clear that we accept the principles of the Dilnot recommendations, including financial protection through capped costs and an extended means test. They are the right basis for any new funding model. That sets out, if you like, our high-level view on what a new funding system should look like, but there will be many questions to answer—such as on the level of the cap and whether the funding system should be voluntary, universal or opt-in—before we can make any firm decisions. It is right that we take time to work through this, including engaging with stakeholders to make sure that any reform is the right one. That means that the next spending review is the appropriate time to take those decisions.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, can we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell?
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while these complex funding matters are being considered, many local authorities are severely reducing the levels of support provided to disabled people in ways that can curtail their independence, prevent them from working and participating in public life and, in some cases, force them into residential care? Is he aware, for example, that Worcestershire County Council proposes to radically restrict the maximum value of an individual disabled person’s care package, offering them no other choice than to enter residential care if they cannot meet the shortfall? Surely the Minister agrees that this runs entirely counter to the White Paper and government policy?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am not aware of the Worcestershire example. What I will say is that the best local authorities are those that enter into a two-way dialogue with service users to see what is best and most appropriate for them in their circumstances. I recognise that this is a challenging settlement for local government, but if local authorities are prepared to reform their services and drive down costs, we believe that the additional investment from the NHS to social care, which we announced in the spending review, will enable local authorities to protect the care that people receive. Many councils are making the necessary changes to ensure that there is no drop in eligibility criteria.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, in view of the answers to the previous supplementary question and to the first Question, which stated that decisions should never be made purely on grounds of cost, is the Minister aware of a case in one of the London boroughs where a woman who has had multiple sclerosis for years and has been cared for by a very loving husband has now been told that she may be obliged to go into a care home because providing her care package at home is costing £79,000, while a care home could be provided for £71,000? That would perhaps not destroy, but put a terribly unfair strain upon, her marriage after all these years. Can the Minister assure us that in the Government’s plans for health and social care, factors other than cost will be considered?
Earl Howe
It would not be right for me to comment on an individual case such as the one mentioned by my noble friend, but I would say that local authorities have a duty to meet people’s eligible needs, and they should take account of a person’s resources as they do so. If a local authority were to change someone’s personal budget, we would expect it to consult and discuss with the service user how their needs and goals could best be met within the new budget. It should not, in most cases, descend to forcing any options on anybody.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I was happy to give way to the noble Baroness, especially on her birthday. The Minister’s words may be comforting to many families when contemplating the future, and may provide comfort that the Government have plans for the future. However, what comfort will he give to my neighbour Margaret who is caring for her husband, who is in the last stages of Alzheimer’s, and is in despair with his and her physical and mental distress? Today—now—they face huge costs for care that is intermittent and often of very poor quality. How does the Minister address the poor-quality issue in the face of such a shortage of funds?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I made clear, the Government and my department have made a very significant sum of money available to local authorities to bolster their social care funding. In the announcements we made last week we said that we were directing additional money to local authorities to support integrated care. I regret the instance that the noble Baroness cites, but it is part of the reason why, in our White Paper and in the announcements we made last week, there is a particular focus on quality and on ensuring that the tick-box approach—which I am afraid some local authorities have taken—should be a thing of the past.
Olympic Games 2012: Traffic
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contingency plans they have made to deal with heavy traffic on key London roads when the Olympic route network becomes operational from 25 July.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, could I ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Answer to the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think the noble Lord got slightly confused there. The Olympic route network—the ORN—has been established to ensure the Games family get to events on time. Games lanes will operate flexibly and be open to all traffic when possible. Motorists should avoid central London and, like everyone, plan their journeys at the Get Ahead of the Games website. We have comprehensive traffic management plans in place and will be focused on getting people to their events on time and keeping London moving.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the Minister for that Answer, which means that there is no contingency plan. There is no plan B. I will give an example of a major artery, and I declare an interest shared with many thousands of people in central London: I live on Southampton Row, a continuation of Kingsway, where there is one bus lane alongside one Olympic lane. In other words, it is a no-go area. The Evening Standard reported last Friday that Transport for London said that everyone could use the bus lane in those circumstances, but local officials say that is not the case. Is there not likely to be great confusion, at least after 25 July, leading to gridlock—which is of great concern for shops, buses, taxis and everyone in that area, and in similar areas around London—with no contingency plan in place?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that there is no contingency plan. There are very detailed contingency plans. For instance, Transport for London has designated alternative Olympic route network roads in case the primary Olympic route network becomes inoperative. As regards the problem that the noble Lord describes, I suggest that he consults the Get Ahead of the Games website. My officials tell me that I have to say “Get Ahead of the Games” in every single supplementary question I answer.
Lord Addington
My Lords, would the Minister agree that complaining about having some traffic disruption during the world’s biggest event is a little like someone who has sat on a fire complaining about their backside burning?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend is absolutely right. The world is coming to London in 2012. Our transport system faces unprecedented challenges, and the Olympic route network is essential to ensuring that the transport system works at Games time and to making the Games a great success, as I am sure they will be.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, has the Minister tried to work the Get Ahead of the Games website? I am totally in favour of the Olympics and of seeing the signs on the roads. However, I wanted to find out whether I could come into London on a particular route. If the Minister tried the website, he would find it very difficult to find the answer.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when I last answered a Question about the Olympic travel arrangements, I used the Get Ahead of the Games website, and it worked. Sometimes these websites take a little bit of getting used to. I urge noble Lords to persist with it. It is a very good tool, particularly to see which Tube stations will be very heavily congested, and at which times.
Lord Geddes
Could my noble friend confirm, or otherwise, that while the House is sitting, Members of the House may use the Olympic lanes when coming to and from the House?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I suggest that that is an extremely unwise course of action. The policing of the Olympic lanes—the Games lanes—is similar to bus lanes. If the noble Lord thinks he can use a bus lane with impunity then he can try the Olympic lanes, but it is not something that I would recommend.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I find myself agreeing with the Minister that, of course, London has to offer a welcome to visitors from all over the world to these Games. The lanes are essential to the smooth running of the Games. Of course, there is already sufficient confusion and long tailbacks have been established on some routes and the lanes are not even in action yet. We must make every effort to make things clear to the public. Would the Minister strengthen the point that he made a moment ago that no privileged access to the ZiL lanes, apart from for Olympic officials, will be permitted and certainly not for Ministers of the Crown?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I can assure the House that Ministers of the Crown do not have any privileges in regard to the use of the Games lanes, with the exception of when advised to use them by the security services, and that will apply to very few Ministers indeed.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, how can the House have confidence in all the contingency plans here and there when, if we are to believe today’s press, a coach driver taking an Olympic team to the stadium could not find his way and took four hours to get there? He could not read a sat-nav and apparently was directed to the stadium only when someone managed to find it on their mobile phone.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I expect all noble Lords have had a sat-nav moment. I certainly have in my driving career. LOCOG knows where all the Olympic coaches operated by it are on the Olympic network and, if something goes wrong, LOCOG will know. I do not know the full details about the coach to which the noble Lord refers, but I can assure noble Lords that LOCOG has a good system for managing the coaches.
Draft Electricity and Gas (Smart Meters Licensable Activity) Order 2012
Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Verma
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12 June be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
1. That the Commons message of 16 July be considered and that a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, to consider and report on:
(a) professional standards and culture of the UK banking sector, taking account of regulatory and competition investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process;
(b) lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency and conflicts of interest, and their implications for regulation and for Government policy;
and to make recommendations for legislative and other action;
2. That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 63(2), the following members be appointed to the Committee:
The Lord Bishop of Durham, Baroness Kramer, Lord Lawson of Blaby, Lord McFall of Alcluith, Lord Turnbull;
3. That the Chairman of the Commission be appointed by the House of Commons;
4. That the Commission shall, except as provided for in this order, follow the procedure of a select committee of the House of Commons;
5. That the Commission have power:
(a) to send for persons, papers and records;
(b) to examine witnesses on oath;
(c) to appoint specialist advisers;
(d) to invite specialist advisers (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;
(e) to adjourn from place to place;
6. That the Commission have leave to report from time to time and that the Reports of the Commission shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
7. That the evidence taken by the Commission shall, if the Commission so wishes, be published;
8. That the Committee appointed by the House of Lords have power to report to the House any decision of the Commission reached pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Commons resolution of 16 July;
9. That the Commission shall have power to appoint sub-committees to consider matters specified by the Commission within the terms of this order and a sub-committee shall have:
(a) the powers in paragraph 5(a), (b) and (e); and
(b) the power to invite specialist advisers appointed by the Commission (including Counsel appointed as specialist advisers) to examine witnesses;
10. That the quorum of the Commission shall be two members of each House;
11. That the quorum of any sub-committee shall be one member from either House; and
12. That the Commission shall report on legislative action no later than 18 December 2012 and on other matters as soon as possible thereafter.
Arrangement of Business
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the House of Commons rises today, as we all know, and noble Lords may recall that, during the Jubilee Recess when this House sat, the Government announced changes to tax policy to the media rather than to Parliament—that is to say, to our House. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could reassure noble Lords that when the House of Commons has gone into recess any policy announcements will be made to this House, while it is sitting, as we are a House of Parliament, rather than to the media first. We shall be vigilant with regard to any sneaky Statements that might come out.
I also take this opportunity to wish a very happy birthday to the Chief Whip, the noble friend of the Leader of the House.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join in those very happy returns to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentlemen at Arms.
There is no desire on the Government’s part to produce any sneaky Statements at all when the House of Commons is not sitting. Of course, this House will be sitting next week and any Statements, Urgent Questions or PNQs will be taken in the normal way.
Lord Grocott
Will the Leader of the House undertake to inform the House of the additional cost that will undoubtedly be incurred as a result of this House sitting as though it were a unicameral system for a week now, then the Commons sitting for a fortnight as though it were a unicameral system in September, and then this House sitting again a couple of weeks after that? It undoubtedly means that we will be functioning less efficiently with all sorts of committees, which affect Members of both Houses, being unable to operate as they would when Parliament functions in the normal way. However, I refer specifically to the costs of the Houses sitting in a way that the Government now seem bent on, which I do not think is for the convenience of the House or of the public.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is most bizarre. The House has sat on different days from the House of Commons for decades, as far as I can remember. If there are any additional costs, I shall let the noble Lord know. I do not think that there will be; we are not sitting, overall, for more days than otherwise we would have been.
Defence Equipment and Support
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to an Urgent Question in another place on defence equipment and support. The Statement is as follows:
“A key element in the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence is that of its equipment and support activities through its Materiel Strategy. Reforming the acquisition system to drive better value from the defence budget is a core element of the transformation process under way in the Ministry of Defence.
This will require changes to the Defence Equipment and Support organisation to ensure that it has the structures, management and skills it needs to provide the right equipment to our Armed Forces at the right time and at the right cost. Change is essential to tackle the legacy problems in defence acquisition that have historically led to cost and schedule overruns, and which have resisted previous attempts at reform. The current system does not help or support DE and S properly, and it is not delivering value for money for the taxpayer.
Analysis reveals the following root causes: a historically overheated equipment programme, in which far more projects were planned than could be paid for; a weak interface between DE and S and the wider Ministry of Defence with poor discipline and change control between those setting requirements for equipment and those delivering the programmes; and insufficient levels of business capability at DE and S for the scale and complexity of the portfolio it is asked to deliver.
The result of these combined issues has been significant additional costs in the defence budget, in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year. Earlier this year MoD officials were asked to focus their efforts on considering the comparative benefits which could be derived from changing DE and S into either an executive non-departmental public body with a strategic partner from the private sector, or a government-owned, contractor-operated entity. The work done to date suggests that the strategic case for the GOCO option is stronger than the ENDPB option. Further value-for-money work is under way to confirm this assessment.
In the mean time, as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, we have decided that the department should focus its effort on developing and testing the GOCO option further. The work to determine value for money between the options will take place over the next few months. In parallel, we will begin to develop a commercial strategy, engaging with industry to hone our requirement. This work will support decisions later this year on whether to proceed with the GOCO option and whether to launch a competition for a private sector management company to run the organisation.
Provided that the further work demonstrates that the value-for-money case for GOCO over ENDPB/SP is conclusive, this will be followed by an investment appraisal that will test the GOCO against a public sector comparator. Ultimately, this would be followed by a decision on whether to proceed”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement the response to the Urgent Question that was accepted and answered in the other place earlier today.
The Secretary of State also issued a Written Ministerial Statement today, the last day before the House of Commons breaks for the Summer Recess. In that Written Statement as well as in the Statement that we have just heard, the Secretary of State set out his views on why the present system of procurement did not work as effectively as it might. He went on to say that the restructuring of defence equipment and support was key to maintaining the defence budget in balance.
Two options for restructuring have been considered—namely; either an executive non-departmental public body, with a strategic partner from the private sector, or a government-owned contractor-operated entity. The Government take the view that the work done to date “suggests” that the case for the government-owned contractor-operated company is stronger than the first option, but say that further value-for-money work is under way “to confirm this assessment”, which indicates that in the minds of some a conclusion has already nearly been reached.
In the mean time, the Secretary of State said in his Written Statement that,
“as resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options simultaneously to the next stage, I have decided that MOD should focus its effort on developing and testing the GOCO option further”—
that is the government-owned contractor-operated option.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, although, before I start, I must say that I am not expecting him to be a walking encyclopaedia. If he is not able to respond to all my questions, it would be more than acceptable if he were able to give the answers subsequently in writing.
First, what would be the additional cost of pursuing the two options simultaneously to the next stage, and what exactly are the “resources and commercial appetite” constraints referred to? Unless it is going to cost a substantial sum, the constraints cannot be financial since the Secretary of State has told us that he has balanced the defence budget. He has also told us that the restructuring of defence equipment and supplies is key to the process of maintaining the budget in balance. This is hardly an issue one would have thought appropriate for not undertaking with complete thoroughness and openness and testing fully the merits of the two options when the Government agree that the work done to date only “suggests” that the GOCO option might be better.
The Secretary of State said more than once in his Statement today that the criterion is value for money and apparently only value for money. Is it literally the case that no other factors will be taken into account in determining the most appropriate form of restructuring for defence equipment and supplies? What factors are included within the criterion of value for money? Issues of national security must surely be involved in defence procurement, including security of sensitive information or the potential loss of skilled staff who may not wish to move to the private sector under the new structure proposed. How will non-monetary considerations be assessed against a value-for-money criterion?
The Statement refers to having a competition for the private sector management company to run the organisation. What kind of companies will be invited to tender? Will they be major defence contractors and, if so, would there not be a potential conflict of interest if such a company were running an organisation awarding contracts? Or, will major defence contractors or companies with defence contracts be excluded? In which case, what skills or expertise in the defence field would such a management company be expected to be able to show?
After all, we need to be very careful. We have just had an example of a major private company involved in the Olympic Games on the security side which has not exactly excelled itself. One of the issues in that case is that the Home Office said that it was not aware of the impending failure to deliver because contracts were with LOCOG and not direct with itself. Is that not a possible likelihood with the GOCO: namely, that Ministers become a step further removed from knowing what is actually happening, with the potential consequence of the kind of situation we have seen with G4S? The GOCO appears to bring a third party between the defence contractors and the Ministry of Defence, which may not be helpful.
Under the GOCO arrangement, where will commercial risk within the private sector lie in future? In particular, what commercial risk would lie with the GOCO? The GOCO will have contracts with defence contractors. If the defence contractor fails to deliver, presumably the defence contractor picks up the bill. However, what happens if changes are made to the specification? Will the GOCO and the private management company bear the additional costs, or will they continue to lie with the Ministry of Defence? What expertise is it considered that the private management company will bring that is not there at present? Will it be technical, or some other form, of expertise? Is it envisaged that all DE and S will be transferred over to the new private management company, and continue to work at its existing locations? Will military personnel continue to be part of DE and S if it becomes a GOCO, and on what basis will they be employed? As it will be run as a private company, will they be required to leave the Armed Forces? Is the reality in fact that the only change is that at boardroom level the GOCO will be run by private sector managers, who will not be required to have any defence experience, as opposed to DE and S being run by the Ministry of Defence?
Where will the GOCO fit in as far as the international dimension is concerned? There is the issue of our defence manufacturers being asked to provide equipment which will also meet specifications to make sales overseas achievable. There is also the political decision on whether to procure defence equipment from overseas which is made overseas, or whether to have equipment largely made and supplied from within our own country. Who will make those decisions: the GOCO or the Ministry of Defence? Will primary legislation be required if the government-owned, contractor-operated company is to be established?
The Statement by the Secretary of State also referred to testing the GOCO against a public sector comparator before finally deciding whether to proceed. Which public sector comparator would that be, and will the only criterion once again be value for money? Finally, how can we be assured that our brave troops on the front line, who it is widely accepted have the best equipment and supplies under the present DS and E structure, will continue to do so under the vague and unclear future now being proposed?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; I am not a walking encyclopaedia. I will do my very best to answer as many questions as I can, but I will write to the noble Lord with the answers to the others. I will also put a copy in the Library.
I will try and take the questions as they came at me. The noble Lord asked why we need to change DE and S. For decades, the MoD has wrestled without success with the legacy problems of defence acquisition. It is clear that addressing the problems within current structures will be extremely challenging. We will, however, develop a public sector comparator based on DE and S-plus, which will be an on-vote solution with enhanced capabilities. The noble Lord asked if primary legislation would be necessary. At the moment we feel that it probably will not be, but we are putting in place all the building blocks just in case.
The noble Lord asked why the GOCO route was preferable. Work to date indicates that the strategic case for GOCO is stronger than that for an ENDPB with a strategic partner. This is based on the significant qualitative benefits that a GOCO would bring. These include the flexibility of the private sector, the increased resources available to support successful delivery and the introduction of a change in culture and behaviour to improve DE and S’s focus on the bottom line. It gives us much more strategic freedom by allowing us to manage staff in a flexible way and to bring in private-sector skills.
The noble Lord asked about value for money. Officials expect to complete work on the value for money analysis in the next few months, for consideration by Ministers in the autumn. The value for money analysis is an extremely complex area of work, representing a business change without precedent in government and requiring thorough analysis to enable discrimination between the options. This is a big decision and it is worth spending the extra time now to ensure that we make it for the right reasons.
The noble Lord also asked about members of the Armed Forces. The requirement is for specialised expertise, knowledge and skills in areas not currently found in DE and S and the wider department. This external support is key to getting DE and S into a position to create an effective organisation going forward. An important element of the future organisational design of DE and S will be ensuring that the military continues to play a key role, which will be important for individuals’ careers.
I was asked why we rejected other models. It is clear that addressing DE and S’s problems within the current structures will be extremely challenging. Changing DE and S to a trading fund was ruled out early on the basis that it would not be suitable for its business. It would also not be appropriate to privatise the organisation. The noble Lord raised the international situation and the position of our allies. We are working with our international partners to ensure that their interests are protected during the transformation of DE and S.
Those are all the questions I managed to write down. As I said earlier, I undertake to write to the noble Lord on any others.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, this is a very short Statement for a huge issue. I remember taking two Bills through the other place nearly 30 years ago to privatise the Royal Ordnance factories and contractorise the dockyards, which I understand is probably the best example of a GOCO. I want to query the Minister’s response that we are unlikely to need legislation. I would be grateful if he could further explore that.
I have four specific questions. First, who is studying the comparative benefits of the two main options? Are they just MoD officials or are consultants involved as well, and what is the cost of those consultants? Secondly, I refer to the claim that,
“resources and commercial appetite constrain our ability to pursue these two options”.
I really do not understand what commercial appetite constraints are. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also raised this point in his remarks. Thirdly, is either option likely to involve civilian redundancies over and above the 25,000 already being targeted by the ministry? Finally, are there any examples of other countries effectively outsourcing their supplier of military equipment in this way?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this is a really big issue. I had only a short time in which to prepare for this Statement and that made me realise what a big subject this is. It may be an area on which we could have a debate in the House, and I would encourage my noble friend to go through the usual channels to see whether a debate could be set up. He asked why no legislation was necessary for this. I asked officials about that and their advice was that it is very unlikely—but just in case it is needed, all the building blocks are being put in place. No decisions on the future operating model of DE and S have yet been taken. The GOCO may require legislation, but the issue will be addressed in due course.
I cannot answer my noble friend’s question about whether it was just MoD officials involved in the decision-making process, but I understand that there will be no additional redundancies as a result of these changes. I am pretty certain that that is the correct answer.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, one of the criteria that Mr Bernard Gray identified in his major study of DE and S was that a budget provision for a 10-year period should be made for the equipment programme. Many instances of overloading the programme in the past have probably been attributable to changes in the budget provision, which the Ministry of Defence had expected. Has an agreement been reached on the lines of what Mr Bernard Gray was looking for, with a 10-year guaranteed budget for the equipment programme? Without that it will be difficult to be sure that we will not overload the programme if there are cuts.
Lord Astor of Hever
I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that Bernard Gray, who wrote the report, is now working for the MoD—poacher turned gamekeeper. I am confident that he has extracted a lot of the assurances that he was after.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the input of the chiefs of staff into the initiation of the defence procurement process—namely the preparation of staff targets and staff requirements—will remain untouched after the changes that he proposes?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that assurance, but I am pretty certain that the Chiefs of Staff will have had strong reassurances on that issue.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, I am in no doubt of the need to improve the overall performance of Defence Equipment and Support. However, I have lost count of the number of major reorganisations to which the mechanisms for defence acquisition and logistic support have been subjected over the past decade and a half. It seems unreasonable to expect superior performance from any organisation that spends almost its entire time studying its own navel. Can there be sufficiently wide-ranging consultation this time so that whatever emerges from this particular exercise has some chance of enduring for at least a number of years, and so that we can get some performance out of the organisation rather than a wholesale change of deck-chairs every few years?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. As we said in the Statement, no decision will be taken until the end of the year. We want to discuss this with as many people as possible, not least our own workers and the trade unions, so I can reassure the noble and gallant Lord.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I endorse the point that my noble friend has made: we should have a debate not only on this matter, but on many other matters. Perhaps a debate will go some way towards highlighting the matters that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned. We have had severe and deep cuts to the Army, and questions as to the inequitable nature of the redundancy payments and of the capacity and capability of the reserves, however willing they are. But on this matter, will my noble friend explain the advantages to the Armed Forces of privatising the Defence Equipment and Support organisation? I hope that factors such as security of supply, urgency, value for money, secrecy and commitment are paramount in the minds of those who are deciding this policy.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I would certainly welcome a debate on this subject, not least of all because it would give me more time to swot up on a complicated subject. As for the advantages of privatising Defence Equipment and Support, and as far as the Armed Forces are concerned, there is a compelling case for reform. Analysis has shown that cost and schedule overruns have resulted in significant additional cost to the defence budget of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds each year. A GOCO offers the greatest likelihood of focused and sustained improvement. It has the strongest incentive for culture change and a drive for productivity. The Armed Forces will benefit from getting equipment and services on time and at the right price.
Lord Bach
My Lords, do the Government believe in the concept of a defence industrial policy? It seems to some of us that in reality this plan may mean that within a fairly short time we will be buying off the shelf from anywhere, at the expense of—and with no regard for—the British defence industry, which is an excellent manufacturing industry, one of the few that remain, providing many jobs and great skills, very much to the benefit of this country. Some of us worry that the ultimate consequence of this sort of decision will be to kill off the British defence industry. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is very nice to see the noble Lord back here discussing defence issues. I can assure him that we buy the best equipment for our Armed Forces. That is our starting and ending point.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, currently Defence Equipment and Support has stewardship of a key front-line activity, logistics support, which includes such things as running naval bases. However successful or otherwise one might view Defence Equipment and Support’s performance in this area, the current shock with respect to outsourcing of major critical activities has to be a concern. Can the Minister reassure the House that the area of logistics support to the front line will be very carefully guarded; for example, passing back the running of naval bases to the single services?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord that reassurance. Obviously, in the light of the G4S issue, we are looking at it even more carefully.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
Can the Minister say whether the withdrawal of equipment that is surplus to requirements from areas such as Afghanistan will have any effect on the equipment programme?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we will have to decide whether to take the UOR equipment back into the core defence budget. It is much too early to give my noble friend an answer on that. We are looking at it very closely.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in mulling over his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will my noble friend—
Lord Elton
I am sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It is a mistake I have made before. Bad map-reading; I apologise.
Lord Elton
My Lords, if I can start again, can my noble friend tell us whether in any debate that we have he will be prepared to answer questions about how research and development will be continued under the new organisation? It is very important that the budgetary and technical skills of the department, the military and the commercial suppliers are co-ordinated. How is that going to be managed and by whom?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. If we do have a debate, I undertake to answer as many questions as I possibly can, and I would ensure that I got sufficient briefing to answer my noble friend’s question on this important issue.
Lord Empey
My Lords, some of us in this House have had experience of a GOCO being established in Northern Ireland to run the water industry. My colleagues will know that it has not been a very pleasant experience. I urge the Minister to look at that example because failure in this area would be much more catastrophic. Is not planning for defence infinitely more difficult than virtually any other area of Government because events quite often occur that require changes in specification, which generate most of the cost overruns?
I also support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. We are second in the world in aerospace at the moment and there are strategic reasons why we need to maintain a defence industry, which do not always mean the cheapest contract wins. We have to maintain a long-term strategic capability in this country. I would certainly be looking forward to seeing that issue addressed in any proposals. I echo what other noble Lords have said in calling for an early debate on this and related issues.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as we said in the Statement, we have undertaken to consult as widely as possible, so I encourage the noble Lord to feed in any issues he has in relation to the water GOCO so that any lessons can be learned. I, more than anyone, want to see a strong defence industry in this country and we will do what we can to ensure that there is one.
Lord Williams of Elvel
The Minister said that he wants to consult as widely as possible. What form will that consultation take? We have had a Statement and a number of questions to which there are, apparently, no answers because the Minister says he has not been briefed. Will there be a Green Paper? Will there be a debate? What are the answers? It is a sad day in this House when we have a Minister saying, “I am terribly sorry, but I do not know the answer to any of these questions”.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, that is very unfair. I did not say that I had not been briefed; I just said that I would welcome a debate because it would give me much more opportunity to talk at greater length about these very important issues. I never said that I had not been briefed—that is completely untrue—but I would welcome a debate in order to air all this and to hear any questions and issues that noble Lords have on this important subject.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, about the need to maintain a strong British defence industry, and the Minister’s agreement with that, is there any constraint on that policy through having to obey the strict rules under the single market by which contracts have to be advertised throughout the European Union? Value for money is an absolute, although there may be constraints upon the cost that is paid.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said earlier, I want a very strong British defence industry. We have to obey EU industrial rules, whether I like it or not; we have to stand by them.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
““national security” means an operation of the intelligence or military services”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Amendment 53 is a simple amendment, which merely inserts at the end of Clause 6(7) a definition for “national security” as meaning an operation of the intelligence or military services. If I say “simple”, it is probably deceptively simple, because I fully appreciate that its consequences are far from simple. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has very kindly told me that she does not agree with this approach, and as she has forgotten more about national security than I will ever know, I await with interest what she has to tell me on the other side of this coin.
I make two background points. One is that I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment. This is just the best that the organisation Reprieve and I could come up with. However, I am wedded—this is the second point—to the idea of a debate, so that we can explore the advantages and disadvantages of having a definition. Why, on balance, do I think that there should be a statutory definition? I suspect that, over the years, the absence of a definition has given the Secretary of State quite a lot of freedom. It may or may not, in the past, have been useful and helpful to have a flexible definition, but we are now looking at different things in the Bill and I think that the arguments about flexibility come under more stress and strain.
I will share with the Committee some examples of the flexible use of the phrase “national security” in the past. Some 40 years ago I applied to join the Foreign Office and it turned me down, greatly to its good fortune. I was told in my interview that if I had certain sexual preferences, this would give rise to questions of national security. More recently, I recall an elderly heckler of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair being detained under prevention of terrorism laws, which presumably also could give rise to questions of national security. The rather graphically described “spy HQ” overspend on both the MI5 and MI6 buildings, whose costs overran by £226 million, was able to be discussed only in part on grounds of national security.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment in much the same way as it was presented. In other words, I can understand that these may not be the words which the Government could accept, but some definition is essential and I can give a personal example of how I believe that to be so. During the time when I was in the other House, I sought to establish, for constituency reasons, the precise details of why a number of aeroplanes flew over my constituency to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. The information was available in detail in the United States. As I got nearer and nearer by asking a series of questions, I was told that I could ask no more questions because the Prime Minister had decided that it was a matter of national security not to tell me the terms under which these flights took place. It was very difficult to accept that because I could read in the American papers exactly what had happened, but evidently it was not something that could be given to me as a Member of Parliament in this country about something which had happened from this country, which had been an outrage and which was based upon false information provided by the American security services.
I am one of those who voted against the Iraq war on the basis that I did not believe what the Prime Minister was telling me—or rather I thought he told me more than he knew, which is perhaps a more polite and parliamentary way of putting it. One reason why I did was that I had learnt—as the French say—to méfier when it came to such a firm statement that it was about national security. We have gone through a period in which these words have been used more to avoid embarrassing comments and questions than to fulfil their important role of protecting our lives and those of our servicemen. I do not think that anybody could accuse me or my noble friend Lord Hodgson of being other than clearly on the side of the right, in more senses than one, so we are not likely to wish to undermine national security. However those of us who take that view have an important role in making sure that it is not misused, as it so often is. In this House we have a series of examples when, because of public outcry, we legislate in all sorts of areas, saying that there is a greater national good which overcomes the normal concerns. At no time is that more important than when we have a great concern about terrorism.
If we look back into history, some of the biggest losses of freedom have taken place in defence of national security and in the prevention of terrorism. In a sense, it is not for those who always dislike the forces of law and order to fight this battle; it is for those of us who are instinctively and almost by DNA on the side of the forces of law and order to explain why we are worried when this sort of thing happens. I have four children. One was taking a dog for a walk when it stopped—as dogs do—on the other side of Whitehall from Downing Street. While the dog fulfilled its purpose, a policeman approached my child and said that he should move on. My child politely said: “The dog is just about to finish”. The policeman said: “If you don’t, I’ll arrest you under the Prevention of Terrorism Act”. My child was intelligent enough to say: “I do not think, officer, that you can do that, but if you just let the dog finish”. It was only through the intervention of a senior officer that there was not what I might call “an incident”.
I know that this does not happen widely but it is very easy to use these phrases as though they help in these discussions. That is why I want a definition. “National security” is far too wide a phrase. It may be that we need to extend it from this, but I hope that the Government will take seriously the fact that the time when we are most concerned with terrorism is when freedom needs to be protected. It is now that we have to take these measures and make sure that we are not giving future Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and the like the ability to use ill worded phrases to do things that, both in prospect and in retrospect, would do a great deal of harm.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, I have very mixed feelings about this amendment. I said in my speech at Second Reading that national security should not be so widely interpreted as to give cover for embarrassment or incompetence. I am sure that is absolutely correct. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hodgson made that point. However, I am very worried when we begin to interpret something such as national security in terms of specific operations or departments. In passing, I make the point that the Diplomatic Service may do many things overseas that affect national security. Many embassies that I have been to have protected rooms where such matters can be discussed. It would be naive to say that because they were done by the Diplomatic Service and not the intelligence service, those matters were not, in the terms of the Bill, ones of national security.
I do not have an answer. All I can say is that you know national security when you see it. The difficulty of looking at this in terms of legislation is that you cannot see it. To give one example, we debated earlier the activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the process of redactions. When a suggestion to redact is made by the Prime Minister, it has to be on the basis of national security. There have been cases in which the committee has argued that national security was not affected. In the course of a practical argument you can come to an answer about what is national security and what is not. This does not help the Minister on the Front Bench. However, I feel it is somehow better to leave the definition more open and allow it to be interpreted in the context of the individual circumstances of each event than to curtail it within the definition of the activities of various departments. In the end, we might find that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we proceed in that way.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I shall make a couple of topical points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. This is very complex. In the old days, in a less complex world, we knew how to finesse these things in a common-law society. Now we are moving towards statute law. The French know how to disobey the law sensibly in view of local circumstances. They know that you cannot slavishly obey every rule. We have not learnt that yet, so we should be very careful about how we set the rules in case they are slavishly obeyed. Somehow blurring the boundaries is much more sensible. I am not sure that having this whole thing of national security quite works. We have seen photographers being stopped for photographing perfectly innocent targets in the name of national security. I am very worried about the way that certain people will use these rules to stop normal activities. We regard ourselves as a free country but, if we are not careful, we might cease to be free. We have to worry about how other people, less sensible than us, may interpret rules in a very strict way in the future.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I certainly did not say that I knew all there was to know on the subject. I understand the concern over the misuse of this phrase to which everyone has referred. No one in this Committee would support what happened to the son of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and his dog or the use of the phrase to cover embarrassment. These things are absolutely not to do with national security, which is being used as blanket cover.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, there was one thing I forgot to say. It is important to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I think Pepper v Hart applies only where there is a conflict between European directives or regulations and UK law and the interpretation of it. Therefore you may not be able to get a Pepper v Hart —as you might say—pronouncement from the Minister tonight.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I think that is too narrow a definition of the Pepper v Hart principle. I seem to recollect that when this Bill was first discussed and promulgated, the Government were intending not to use the test of the interests of national security but what was in the public interest. That was thought to be extremely wide. The leader of my party and my noble and learned friend’s party, apparently—at least he claimed—fought for its reduction to the interests to national security. Where the public interest stops and national security begins is a fine line, or perhaps it is a fuzzy one, but it is up to the Minister to give to a judge who has to consider applications of this sort positive guidelines as to what the Government have in mind now they have reconsidered the original purpose of their Bill.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is too modest in proclaiming that this is a simple amendment, since it goes to the heart of the whole principle of Part 2 of the Bill, which changes—potentially fundamentally—the approach to the operation of civil justice, though not of course criminal justice, in the provision of a system permitting, in circumstances that we are debating, material to be kept from one of the parties and utilised under the closed material procedures.
It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the concerns that have been expressed. I am particularly interested in the briefing submitted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, as it comes from a part of the country that has confronted security issues to a very considerable degree and has suffered considerable harm over the past few decades from activities that all of us would deplore and which would probably come within the compass of any definition of national security.
Nevertheless, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in considering the Bill proclaimed that it was,
“regrettable that despite some modifications to the proposals in the Green Paper, and the declaration under clause 11 … of the Bill”,
concerning these matters, there remain,
“the risks to the right to a fair trial under Article 6”,
of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 14. The commission goes on to say—and this matter was referred to in Second Reading—that the Government have,
“yet to make an evidence based case as to how the current Public Interest Immunity provisions have failed to protect national security interests and therefore why a system of CMPs is needed at all”.
The commission affirms that it would appear that the Government are,
“prepared to sacrifice fair trial protections and wait for litigation to be brought by those alleging”,
a breach of Article 6,
“rather than ensure adequate protection from the outset”.
It advises that,
“the proposals are not likely to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 … in a significant number of cases”.
That is a fairly trenchant critique of the proposals. The commission concludes that the Government have,
“failed to demonstrate the need for the Bill’s provisions … The move from evoking a CMP on public interest grounds to national security grounds has been reported as an acceptable narrowing of the original proposals. Human rights law accepts national security as grounds for qualifying rights. However, NIHRC expresses concern that ‘national security’ remains a broad term that might still be relied on too readily by Government and in a manner that is not consistent with its human rights obligations”.
The briefing refers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred, to the national security strategy, with its references to pandemic diseases and,
“natural hazards along with increases in organised crime are listed as threats to national security”.
It concludes that the Government are,
“yet to be sufficiently definitive about what it means by national security for the purposes of requiring a court to permit a CMP in a civil case. The risk is that what is now claimed to be a ‘fix’ for a limited number of civil cases”—
and that is the Government’s case; the extent to which it is likely to be limited to very few cases is supported by Mr Anderson—
“becomes a ‘fix’ increasingly relied on by Government to obstruct scrutiny and attempts to seek redress”.
The commission’s are not the only concerns that have been expressed about the issue of definition. In evidence from the special advocate to the Select Committee, Mr McCullough stated that,
“there is the possibility that national security could be very broadly defined, unless some reassurance as to its scope were given. On one view at least, anything, or almost anything, involving international relations might be argued, and one could envisage being argued by the Government, as to have an impact on national security”.
Of course, as has already been indicated, it is not really possible to be definitive about what constitutes national security and what does not. It would be impossible to be conclusive because, as noble Lords have indicated, circumstances change and threats change, and it would be foolish to prescribe a definitive list. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said of national security that you know it when you see it. The question is, in these circumstances, who is “you”? The Government may take a view; others may take a different view. Although these matters are difficult, we have to try to evolve a system that will give some guidance to those who operate the system and, indeed, those who may ultimately have to form a judicial position on individual cases.
The Marquess of Lothian
My Lords, Clause 6(2) states:
“The court must, on an application … make such a declaration if the court considers that … such a disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security”.
My point is that, in order for the court to be able to make that decision, that court procedure is the time when you can actually “know it when you see it”. There may be arguments on both sides but the court has to resolve that. We, at the moment, are arguing that in a vacuum the court will have to decide it according to the particular circumstances.
Lord Beecham
It would, but the court would be assisted perhaps by an approach in which the Government in advance and in general terms—and not necessarily on a permanent basis—indicate what they consider is relevant for the purposes of these claims. They could, for example, say, “We have a national security strategy, but there are things in here on which we would not seek to rely in cases that might be brought”—say, organised crime or any of the other matters to which the commission referred and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, provides a definition that is both too broad and too narrow. It seems too broad if one looks simply at the definition of “intelligence or military operations”. There have been cases that resulted in inquests—to which these procedures would not apply—where, for example, there might be a question about whether equipment used during military operations was fit for purpose, and that might give rise to a civil claim, for example, by a wounded soldier; we know that such incidents have arisen. The noble Marquess might say that that does not really constitute national security for the purposes of bringing a claim. On the other hand, the definition could be considered too narrow, because one can envision circumstances in which there was no military operation but there was transportation of chemical or fissile substances or storage of such things, which were not necessarily for military purposes but which obviously would count as being relevant to national security because of the risk of terrorists seizing the equipment or substances. Those examples illustrate the difficulties but do not, perhaps, take us very far.
I wonder whether, in these circumstances, it might be a matter for the Government, possibly with the assistance of the Intelligence and Security Committee, to provide some guidance about what would be deemed to be relevant to the issue of national security in the event of an application being made, assuming that the basic principle is accepted and that the Government are found by Parliament to have made their case—and, I repeat, so far as the Opposition are concerned, we are not yet convinced of that. It may even be that negative definitions of the kind that I have indicated in relation, for example, to the national security strategy, might be helpful so that you can exclude certain things ab initio, and you might give an indication of things that are clearly included—military operations, I would have thought, certainly would be included.
The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as well as that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have indicated the breadth and depth of concern about the road we are embarking on. It is not beyond the capacity of the Government, with the advice and support of the ISC, to produce not a statutory definition, because that would be too rigid, but guidance that would assist the courts and others in considering these matters at the relevant time. Does the Minister consider that a step worth taking?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord said that the party opposite is not yet convinced of the need for CMPs, and he made various suggestions about possible guidance or a definition that would assist on the question of national security. Does it follow that if there were further guidance or a better definition of national security along the lines he suggested, that would go some way to satisfying whatever needs to be satisfied in terms of the party opposite’s potential opposition to CMPs?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we are capable of simple arithmetic, and it may be that, in reality, the Government will get their way on the principle. We will keep an open mind through Report stage and listen carefully to what the Government say. At the end of that process, we may or may not accept the case. If it is the wish of this House—in the first instance—and of Parliament as a whole to proceed with closed material procedures, we might come to what one could call the last-resort position of looking at how best to limit any application of the new procedure and how to make the best of the situation, in the interests of justice and the traditions that this country has espoused for centuries. It would be making the best of what we currently consider is a very bad job. However, we are open to evidence. There is not a great deal of evidence at the moment, although there has been some to which Mr Anderson referred—the three cases which seem to have persuaded him that there is a need for such a procedure. However, as I reminded the House the other night, he also said that the Government’s proposals were disproportionate and suggested measures that would have some mitigating effect on the process, if it were to be implemented.
That is the position of the Opposition. We are not taking a premature stance on this. It would be interesting to know, for example, whether the special advocates have, as suggested, actually been shown the files of the independent adviser who is to be consulted, or whether the process is going to take place at all, and what the view of the special advocates is. Your Lordships will recall that they were very critical. Almost all of them signed up to criticism of the proposals as they stood. In evidence to the Select Committee, Mr McCullough said that he would welcome the opportunity, if it were given, to look at the cases that seemed to have persuaded Mr Anderson to accept the principle, given that, as he made clear, he continued to think there would be only a limited number of cases. At the very least, the amendment has allowed us to look at ways in which such cases might be restricted to a small number, against criteria that, although not statutory, might be developed while the Bill is making its way through Parliament.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for bringing forward the amendment. It is clear from the contributions that it raises an important issue. I certainly recall that on publication of the Bill, the issue of whether there was a definition of national security was raised not just by a number of Members of your Lordships’ House but more widely. It is important to define the type of material that closed material procedures should be used for. I hope that I can set out why we think we have reached in the Bill the right definition of the type of material that would be considered within a CMP—material that if released would damage national security.
The Government carefully considered the responses to the public consultation on the Green Paper, including consideration of the scope of the material to be covered, before bringing forward this legislation. The Bill makes provision for closed material procedures to be used only in contexts where there would be damage to national security. Examples of sensitive material that might be relevant to a case that would give rise to a duty to claim public interest immunity, and which could also be heard in a CMP under this legislation, include, for example, information from a sensitive source whose life or safety could be put in danger if openly disclosed. I think that example was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. Other examples include information relating to current operations that would be compromised if it were to be made public; intelligence material shared with the United Kingdom by foreign intelligence agencies; or the content of telephone calls or e-mails intercepted by the intelligence agencies that would not be admissible in open civil proceedings. It is difficult—a number of noble Lords said this in their contributions—to be completely prescriptive about all the types of damage to national security that could justify closed material proceedings.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend introduces a definition. I would assert that the term “national security” is clear, tried and tested. My noble friend Lord Lothian said that it is clear “when you see it”. One noble Lord asked: “Who sees it?” In this case, the judges see it. The Secretary of State makes an application to the court, and the judge determines whether it satisfies the condition that there would be damage to national security.
It has been for judges to interpret this term appropriately and flexibly. The flexibility of the current approach allows the judge to consider the arguments of the Secretary of State on their merits. Of course, the procedure, even at the initial gateway stage, would also allow special advocates to make representations to the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is important to remember that in Clause 11(5)—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble and learned Lord just said that the special advocates could make representations to the court. I am not a lawyer, as I have said frequently, but Clause 7(1)(b) states that,
“such an application is always considered in the absence of every other party to the proceedings (and every other party’s legal representative)”.
Does that not mean that only one side presents?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that my noble friend has an amendment later where we can explore this more fully. It is the case that special advocates could be engaged both at the second stage, when individual pieces of evidence are being considered, and, by virtue of Clause 10(4), at the application stage.
I will finish my point on Clause 11(5). Nothing in Clauses 6 to 11 should be read as requiring a court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In that respect it could be said that Article 6 trumps the provisions expressly set out in Clauses 6 to11.
My noble friend expressed a recognisable concern that national security today might involve serious crime or international relations tomorrow. It is very clear that not only will it not, but that international relations and criminal activity have been considered and rejected for the purposes of closed material proceedings in civil cases. The Bill deliberately omits other aspects of the public interest from CMP clauses, such as international relations and the prevention of detection of crime, even though these categories are included in existing statutory CMPs. I hope that that gives the assurance that it is certainly the intention of the Government that there should not be definition creep, as it were.
My noble friend asked about Pepper v Hart, as did the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. It is not only when European Union issues are involved but when there is doubt in a court case about the interpretation of any primary legislation that the parties can resort to statements made in Parliament that should throw light on the interpretation. So this is not limited to an EU context. We cannot dictate to the courts how to apply Pepper v Hart, but doubtless, in future, parties to litigation will be able to read what I am saying today at the Dispatch Box and, if pertinent, advance cases to the court on that basis.
I have an embarras de richesses.
Lord Pannick
Can the Minister confirm that the concept of national security under the Bill is deliberately intended to be narrower than the other concepts included in the Bill? I have in mind Clause 5(5), which appears to contrast the concept of national security with the broader concepts of public interest, the prevention or detection of serious crime and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. It appears from Clause 5(5) that those are distinct matters. National security is a much narrower concept, and similarly Clause 13(5) appears to contrast the concept of national security with the concept of the interests of the international relations of the United Kingdom. I understood the noble and learned Lord to confirm that those other concepts were not within the concept of national security.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, for the purpose of closed material proceedings and what we are dealing with here, national security is the specific concept, although it is not defined in the Bill. As I indicated, the Green Paper suggested that it might go wider to include some of the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised, but we have quite clearly indicated that that will not be the case in matters of national security. I give way to my noble friend who I understand was a counsel in Pepper v Hart.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I have two points. I do not understand why it is necessary to refer to Article 6 of the convention in the way that the Bill unusually does, given that the Human Rights Act requires the Bill to be read and given effect to—in so far as is possible—compatibly with convention rights, including Article 6, and given that the court is required under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way compatible with convention rights, including Article 6. I have not before seen in any other legislation post the Human Rights Act the singling out of an article of the convention in that way. It seems to me to be troublesome as it might lead to some inferences that are incompatible with the scheme of the Human Rights Act.
On the same subject, the convention distinguishes between national security in the narrow sense and factors like the economic well-being of the country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred. Am I right in understanding that those are the kind of distinctions that the Government have in mind when they deal with national security in a narrow sense?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hope that Clause 11(5)(c) is not troublesome because it is intended to be the opposite. As we have already heard in our deliberations in Committee, concern has been expressed, even a short while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about Article 6. The clause seeks to give reassurance and I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that. No doubt there may be something on which I can give further reassurance. I think I am right in saying that what is there follows what is in the TPIM Act and the Counter-Terrorism Act. Questions might be raised but it is there to make matters absolutely clear.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson said that he hoped that we would not allow a situation where citizens would be swept up by a wide definition of national security. My noble friend Lord Deben gave a graphic illustration of his son walking the dog. It will not be a constable or a high-ranking officer in Whitehall but a judge who will make the decision. Nor indeed—I shall make this very clear—is the intention to avoid embarrassment. In fact, an important purpose of the Bill is to allow material to be considered by the courts in cases where to exclude it may mean that a case has to be settled. The purpose is actually to allow a court to be able to consider it; this is far from wanting to sweep things under the carpet. If it were the case that, at some date in the future, a Secretary of State tried to use the provisions for the purposes of concealing embarrassment rather than to prevent damage to national security, that is something the court would be entitled to take into account when deciding whether the gateway test in Clause 6 was passed.
There is another point I would make to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who said that the possibility of someone going to prison was important here. I would like to reassure both my noble friend and the Committee that the provisions in this part of the Bill relate to civil, not criminal proceedings. There would not be a situation, therefore, where a person would go to prison as a result of the provisions in this part of the Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and I apologise for the fact that I missed the opening skirmishes of this debate. May I put a point to him which is utterly fundamental? The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said that we would know national security when we came across it. To put a judge in that position would mean that we would give them a legislative function as opposed to an interpretative function? That should be avoided, should it not? I do not expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but could I leave him to mull over this thought? It may be that a different approach could settle the matter in this way. If there was a definition of national security—something of the order of dealing with a situation that jeopardises, or has the potential to jeopardise, a fundamental function of the state—might that be not unacceptable?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will certainly mull over that point. However, in coming up with any definition, we would want to be very careful that it did not exclude things that should be included or include things that perhaps should be excluded. We will look very carefully at what he has said. The intention is that the concept should be a narrow one that will come into play in a very small number of cases. However, the definition set out in the amendment would not cover everything that is damaging to national security. Factors that are damaging to national security can change in accordance with assessments about the threat to the country. That was reflected in the contributions we have had, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. If the definition is too narrow, we take the risk of legislation becoming unfit for the purpose for which it is intended. Sensitive intelligence and security material which security intelligence agencies hold and which is so vital to the discharge of their important statutory functions will have been acquired by them in a variety of ways and from a variety of different sources. Not all national security-sensitive material held by the security and intelligence agencies will by any means relate to, or be the result of, operations.
In view of this, we believe that the amendment is unduly limiting. For example, if information has been shared with United Kingdom agencies in confidence by foreign intelligence agencies, or has been disclosed to them in confidence by human sources, the amendment would not enable such information to be used within a CMP, however sensitive the provenance of the information and however confidential the relationship. There could also be a situation where the agencies have undertaken preliminary research and analysis before deciding whether there is a sufficient national security case to justify embarking on an intelligence operation. Information generated during the course of that preliminary work, whether or not an actual operation ensued, could well be highly sensitive in security terms and of significant relevance in a particular case. However, if the amendment was accepted, it would not be possible to use the information.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who said that there was a danger that the amendment was both too broad and too narrow at the same time. It could also go wider, in that not all matters—including operations by the military—would relate to national security. In fairness, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts accepted that the terms of the amendment might not be ideal. It is perhaps illustrative of the fact that any attempt to make a definition can often be either too limiting or too broad. The Bill recognises that national security is very much an issue for the Secretary of State.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, in supporting the noble and learned Lord’s argument that the definition should not be too narrow, perhaps I may take him back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He sought to establish that national security was a narrow definition by invoking the categories in new Section 59A(5), as inserted by Clause 5, which are,
“national security … the prevention or detection of serious crime”,
and,
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
It must be the case that national security would include some of those other categories. The most obvious one is,
“the prevention or detection of serious crime”,
which might be terrorist crime.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Green Paper suggested that there might well be the category of the prevention of serious crime. That was considered by the Government. I indicated earlier in my remarks that the Bill deliberately omitted from the definition other aspects of the public interest from the CMP clauses, such as international relations and the prevention or detection of crime, although they do apply in other statutory CMPs. But the consideration of the representations received in response to the Green Paper was to make it solely matters that would be damaging to national security.
The policy of successive Governments and the practice of Parliament has not been to define the term “national security”. As a number of your Lordships accepted, it has been to retain the flexibility needed to ensure that the use of the term can adapt to changing circumstances —for example, changes to the threat environment and advances in technology. The nature of national security threats and risks is constantly evolving. That, in turn, requires the Government and the security and intelligence agencies to maintain their ability to evolve.
My noble friend Lord Lothian suggested that it would be better to leave this open and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, accepted that it was not always possible to be definitive. The current approach is based on the recognition that this is a flexible concept which evolves in the light of changing circumstances. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, we want to avoid a legal straitjacket. The risk of any attempt to be precise and exhaustive would be to constrain the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to adapt their operational approach and develop capabilities to meet new and unexpected changing threats.
I will conclude with a pertinent example. Neither weapons of mass destruction proliferation nor cyber attacks feature in what is fortunately a non-exhaustive list of threats to national security which the Security Service is specifically charged with countering in Section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989. But who could deny that, some 23 years later, these activities represent serious threats to the UK’s national security? The flexibility is there for the security services to be charged with responsibilities without there being an exhaustive list.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, accepted that there might not necessarily be a statutory definition and he raised a question about guidelines. I will certainly consider guidelines, but I am not entirely sure where they would fit into the guidance being given to the court, even with the help of the ISC in devising them. However, I know that the suggestion was made in a constructive manner and I will certainly think about it in a constructive way. I do not readily see how it will fit in, but I will certainly consider it. He may wish to elaborate on what he had in mind.
Lord Beecham
I particularly had in mind ruling out areas—the noble and learned Lord has already indicated some of them—that would not be deemed to fit within the definition that the Government seek to apply. It is an exclusive rather than an inclusive list that I think might be helpful,
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I have already tried in response to the debate to indicate some of the things that are excepted from the definition as we have it. With those considerations in mind, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I began by saying that I did not believe that this was an open-and-shut case, and so it has proved. My noble and learned friend has referred to the “statutory straitjacket” and problems thereof. Interestingly enough, while the debate was going on, I was passed a note by one of my noble friends showing a case in which he was involved, where national security was invoked in quite an extraordinary way. I do not therefore think that I have yet reached entirely firm ground.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for his powerful and very apposite remarks and speech. My noble friend Lord Lothian is of course an eminent Scottish advocate. I am not an advocate, Scottish or otherwise, but in reference to his remarks on Clause 6(2) about the court deciding, I am told that where a judge is faced with a statement by the Secretary of State leading to a CMP—not a weighing of evidence like we have in PII—to the effect that this would be damaging to national security, the judge is unlikely to push back on it. Therefore, the idea which the clause might technically give rise to is not, according to legal opinion that I have heard, likely in practice to happen. Those who have experience in your Lordships’ House will be able to discern this better than I can. That is something which we can no doubt explore another day.
I said that the noble Baroness, Lady Mannigham-Buller, had forgotten more about national security than I would ever know. It was meant to be a compliment, for the avoidance of doubt.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
I take it as a compliment. It just sounded as though I had been boasting, and I would not want to do that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
It certainly was not boasting. It was my remark, not any remark the noble Baroness made to me. I found her history lesson, as she described it, very useful. We started from a narrow definition which has now moved out to a much wider range of threats. Of course, one must accept her stricture about protecting sources of intelligence where men and women put their lives on the line to help provide intelligence that protects this country. I thought her suggestions about narrower definitions were very interesting. As we are going to be using CMPs in rare cases and we accept that this is a dangerous precedent in many ways, perhaps some relationship between the definition and the operation of this Bill might be helpful.
In conclusion, I just say that the shift in gears with this Bill—the widening use of CMPs—requires us to consider and reflect on how we use the term “national security” as the trigger without any definition. My noble and learned friend has given plenty of food for thought and I would like to have a chance to consider and reflect. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Disclosure of information
The disclosure of information in civil proceedings pursuant to an order of the court is to be regarded for the purposes of the Security Service Act 1989 or the Intelligence Services Act 1994 as necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or (as the case may be) the Government Communications Headquarters.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, this amendment is concerned with an anomaly that was revealed in the case of Evans v Ministry of Defence. The case concerned the handing over of Taliban suspects by British forces to Afghan security police, with the distinct likelihood that they would be tortured. The security services argued that they were not required to disclose documents in their possession for the purposes of the case because they were not themselves being sued—they were not the party concerned. The defendants were the Ministry of Defence. They said that there was a statutory bar. By Section 2 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the chief of the Intelligence Service is under a duty to ensure that there are arrangements for securing that no information is disclosed,
“except so far as is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions”.
Section 2(2)(a) of the Security Service Act 1989 is of a similar effect. It was argued that it was not necessary even to reveal the existence of the relevant material in their possession since it was not disclosable. I am informed by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law that the Evans case is not the only case in which the security services have advanced that argument.
Clause 6(2) as currently drafted provides that CMP applications apply where a party to the proceedings,
“would be required to disclose material”,
and so it is still open to the security services to argue for what they call a statutory bar, which would mean that they were not required to disclose anything at all unless they were themselves being sued. Paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1, which we have looked at on a number of occasions, is interesting because it makes a specific provision that disclosure to the ISC is,
“necessary for the proper discharge of the functions”.
It is there, presumably, to counter any argument that might be made by the security services that they were not required to disclose anything to the ISC in particular circumstances. If that specific provision is in place for the ISC, there is no reason why a similar provision should not be made for disclosure to the court under Clause 6(2), which is the purpose of the additional clause I have advanced. It would counter any argument that the security services would not be required to reveal anything unless they were being sued themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, would the noble Lord clarify whether the court accepted the argument that it was outside the duties of the intelligence services because they were not themselves being sued?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As I understand it, the court did not accept the argument.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for a clear explanation of something which, I am afraid, I approached with complete bewilderment. I simply did not know the point he was aiming at. I do now and I am persuaded by his argument. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be sympathetic to the case he has made because it is convincing and consistent with the approach to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Given that precedent, I would have thought not that it would damage the interests of the security services, but rather that it would strengthen the role of the courts and uphold the principles that Members across the House seek to maintain in terms of the operation of the justice system. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accede to his noble friend’s plea.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. He rightly points to two pieces of legislation which govern the security and intelligence agencies, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. As my noble friend has indicated, they place an obligation on each of the agency heads to prevent the disclosure of information obtained by the agencies except on certain limited grounds set out in those Acts. In particular, the disclosure of information is permissible where necessary in the proper discharge of the functions of the agencies. Information held by the security and intelligence agencies will include information and intelligence from human source reporting, and therefore is essential to the agencies’ operational effectiveness and the protection of national security.
As I understand it, the concern behind this amendment seems to be that these provisions would prevent the agencies complying with their disclosure obligations in civil proceedings. However, it is our view that the amendment is unnecessary. The agencies take their disclosure obligations very seriously. In England and Wales, if the claim is a civil damages claim, for example, Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules will generally apply. Standard disclosure requires parties to disclose the documents on which they rely—documents which undermine their or another party’s case and documents which support another party’s case. If the claim is for judicial review, all public authorities are subject to a duty of candour which requires the public authority, when presenting its evidence, to set out fully and fairly all matters that are relevant to the proceedings. Naturally, part of considering these disclosure obligations is the question of whether PII should be claimed or, if Parliament passes Part 2 of the Bill, whether the Secretary of State should apply for closed material proceedings. In a case where the agency is being sued for civil damages or someone is applying for judicial review, it is part and parcel of the proper discharge of an agency’s function to defend actions taken in the discharge of its functions. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
My noble friend has made reference to paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 concerning the ISC provisions. This paragraph reflects a provision in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which treats disclosure by the agencies to the ISC as necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. It may be asked, as my noble friend did, why this provision is needed there and not in the context of civil litigation. It is simply because it is right to make it clear, as existing legislation does, that disclosure to the ISC is permitted.
My noble friend may well be raising a case where it is a question of third-party disclosure. He mentioned a case of Evans v Ministry of Defence and, on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I understood him to indicate that that argument did not win the day. It is a case that I wish to consider in the light of what my noble friend has said. If the effect of this amendment would be to treat the disclosure into any civil proceedings, regardless of the identity of the parties or the subject matter of the proceedings, as somehow part of the proper discharge of the agencies’ functions, that would conflict with the agencies’ need and ability to operate in secret. This is vital to maintaining the trust and confidence of those with whom they work; or, as was said in the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, information may come from a particular agent, and the secrecy of that is important. I am thinking in particular of proceedings that do not at all involve the agencies and where a request for disclosure is made. It is right that in these circumstances the courts consider whether disclosure would be necessary for the proper discharge of an agency’s functions before an order for disclosure is made.
I have indicated to my noble friend that I will look at the Evans case. Based on what he said, I am advised that it may be similar to and consistent with the arguments that the agencies made in the Omagh bombing case—namely, that Section 22A is a bar to third-party disclosure, and that it was for the courts to decide. I hope that he hears that the agencies take seriously the requirements of disclosure in civil proceedings under Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. On that ground I urge that the amendment is unnecessary and ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am most grateful to my noble friend for indicating that he will look at these cases. In the light of that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Independent judicial commissioners to sit with judges in closed material proceedings
(1) Where the court makes a declaration pursuant to section 6(1)—
(a) the judge in the relevant civil proceedings shall thereafter sit with four independent judicial commissioners who shall sit throughout all open and closed proceedings;(b) the independent judicial commissioners shall sit with the judge as judges of fact.(2) The independent judicial commissioners shall consist of—
(a) county court judges, serving or retired, who have been subject to security vetting, such security vetting to have been supervised by a High Court judge; or(b) retired judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court; and in either case—(i) being persons who have had no professional or other substantial connection with the armed services or security services; and(ii) being persons who have, so far as possible, never before sat as judges or independent judicial commissioners in closed material proceedings.(3) Judgement shall be given in favour of the excluded parties in the relevant civil proceedings unless the judge and the judicial commissioners shall unanimously or by a majority verdict of not less than 4:1 find that the cases of the excluded parties have been disproved to a high degree of conviction.”
Lord Dubs
My Lords, let us suppose that we have the first case heard or not heard in public under these new procedures. There are bound to be doubts, particularly if it is a case that has achieved a certain amount of publicity and notoriety, about the reliability and integrity of a verdict that has been entered against a citizen after the court has heard the evidence against him or her in secret. It is something to do with the concept, in a phrase that I have heard, of the secret whispers that the judge will have heard. I am not for a moment suggesting that the judge would not behave with total reliability and integrity, but there is also the question of the public perception of how that has happened.
There has to be a concern that the public may perceive that a single judge might be thought of as being one-sided if he repeatedly hears the state’s evidence in secret and finds in its favour. All that we shall know is that the judge has heard a lot more than the rest of the world is able to discern. Is it possible to develop any safeguards against what would be a serious perception about how the judges have operated? I repeat that I am not in any way suggesting that the judge would not behave with integrity, but he has to be seen to do so by the public.
This probing amendment suggests that there is one way of lessening a critical perception on the part of the public. That would be to appoint judicial commissioners. They would be able to sit with the judge. It would not be the judge on his own, but there would be four judicial commissioners. As the amendment makes clear, these judicial commissioners would be security-cleared county court judges or retired members of the upper judiciary; they would be totally independent of the security services or the Armed Forces; and, wherever possible, they would not have sat on CMPs before. All I am talking about here is a very simple safeguard that would not affect the principle of what the Government are about.
By putting this amendment forward, I am in no way accepting the basic principle of CMPs, but if one tries to make something one does not like less bad, one is not necessarily accepting the principle of the thing—just in case there is any misunderstanding. Having said that, to make this work less badly than the Bill currently proposes, I am simply suggesting that it might be helpful to have independent commissioners sitting alongside the judge. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I have not had much time to consider this amendment but, on the face of it, it seems attractive. Of course, judges are quite used to sitting with assessors on questions of fact. Certainly that is true in patent cases at all levels and, if I remember correctly, the Restrictive Practices Court used to sit with lay assessors. It is true that in all those cases the assessor would be an expert rather than a judge, so he would not be able to overrule the judge on a question of fact. But that was not always so in other cases; for example, the president of an employment tribunal could always be overruled—and was sometimes overruled —by the two other members of the tribunal on a pure question of fact. Therefore, the idea of the judge in these cases sitting with other judges is not altogether startling.
However, the reason I support the amendment is rather different from the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Being a judge can be a very anxious business. Of course, in the most serious criminal cases findings of fact are made by the jury, so the problem does not arise, but there are very serious civil cases where the judge has to make a finding of fact as to which side he believes, and that necessarily involves a finding that the other side is lying. I sat in many such cases and I often felt the need for someone sitting beside me who could either confirm or overrule my view. One surely cannot imagine a more serious sort of case than that which is going to be tried under the new closed material procedure, and I support the amendment for that reason.
I have doubts about subsection (3). I would have thought that two assessors rather than four would be sufficient for the noble Lord’s purpose. It would certainly have been sufficient for my purpose when I was sitting as a judge. I hope that the Minister will give a fair wind to this amendment, which I support.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, very briefly, while the idea of having those who are not the primary judges assisting that judge with making decisions is not unfamiliar—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, it has precedent in a number of different contexts—this represents a rather elaborate and perhaps even cumbersome method of deciding these cases. It also must be borne in mind that the special advocates are particularly anxious to preserve the role of a single judge in whom they have great faith, judged on the limited experience of closed material proceedings. In fact, they very much favour the role of the judge using the existing PII process instead of CMPs, rather than advocating the rather broader process contained in the amendment.
Proposed new subsection (3) is perhaps unusual—which of itself is not an objection—but I respectfully suggest that the final provision requiring a reversal of the burden of proof to a high degree of conviction is really going it a little bit. It means that it will be very difficult indeed for the Government to rely on evidence and the whole purpose of the CMPs will be frustrated. That may indeed be the intention of the amendment but it is not a very satisfactory position.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the fundamental unfairness of the procedure by which the judge decides the case without one party having access to vital material and about the public perception of a decision made on that basis. However, it seems to me that the fundamental unfairness, and the perception of unfairness, is not caused by the identity of the judge or the fact that there is only one judge sitting. It does not seem to me that the fundamental unfairness, or the perception of it, will be diminished at all if the judge sits not alone but with two county court judges, four county court judges, or with two or four retired judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. That is not the cause of the fundamental unfairness.
Nor, with great respect, do I share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that there is some onerous obligation on the judge who hears these cases alone. Judges are used to hearing difficult questions and deciding them. Judges decide, and have decided, similar issues in the context of control orders and they are now deciding them in the context of TPIMs. Of course, there are very considerable cost implications of having five judges instead of one whenever one has secret hearings and it will cause very considerable delay in these hearings. So although I understand the concerns, I do not think that this is a solution.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, however, for the reasons principally given by my noble friend Lord Faulks, I disagree with this proposal. It does scant justice to the judges who have shown great independence in the control order and TPIM cases that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned. I do not understand the substance of this proposed amendment to be a complaint made by the special advocates at all. My view is that the way in which judges are trained and apply themselves to their cases does not require an elaborate amendment of this kind.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, the motivations behind this amendment are, I have no doubt, noble, honourable and sensitive. I greatly respect, therefore, the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I respectfully tend to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it may well be that there is a case for having what is almost a jury situation. In such a situation—again, bearing in mind that juries very seldom operate in civil cases—we would not normally have a jury in any event, but the real problem is, I think, a much deeper one.
Imagine a judge having to determine the fundamental issue of whether this matter is to be dealt with by way of a secret hearing. Does he look at the prose of the application by the Secretary of State or the affidavits? Does he look into the eyes of learned counsel to see whether there is a burning sincerity in the face of the counsel for the claimant or whether there are doubts genuinely registered in the face of the counsel for the defendant? Is the judge not placed in a situation that is virtually impossible?
To a large extent the question of a special advocate under Clause 5 and, I would say, to a limited extent the appointment of a special counsel under Clause 8, will deal with part of that. There will be a totally independent advocate, but an advocate, however brilliant, forensically skilled and eloquent, can be only as effective as the ammunition that he has at his disposal, which is the correctitude of certain facts that are relied on by a party. If that estimate, however genuine, is wrong, then the decision of the learned judge must be utterly fallacious. How do you deal with that situation? I harken back to debates that we had some years ago in relation to a criminal situation and PII. It seems to me that there is a very strong and unanswerable case for a special investigator operating under the special advocate. It does not seem from my reading of Clause 8 that there is any power for the special advocate to appoint such a person. However, the fairness of the situation will depend entirely on the assiduity with which some other person or body would be able to examine these sensitive facts. That person must be someone in whom the community has total confidence in terms of confidentiality and secrecy but also their competence to bring to the attention of the court that vital element of the correctitude or otherwise of those facts.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, in later amendments, we will be considering ways of making what at the moment is an unfair procedure fair, or less unfair. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the procedure as it stands is not fair and also that it does not become any more fair by adding assessors or advisors to help the judge who has to decide whether to grant a declaration under Clause 6(1).
My experience of assessors or others—whether in an employment tribunal or in a county court for example—in dealing with discrimination cases, which are difficult and often involve weighing proportionality issues, has been an unhappy one. Along with others who have spoken, I have huge admiration for, and confidence in, the ability of our senior judiciary and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile of Berriew, that our judges have displayed a very good ability to weigh competing interests in difficult cases.
It will be important to look later at ways of making the procedure fairer, but with all respect to county court judges, whether serving or retired, and to retired judges of the senior courts, I simply do not think that having more of them is going to make it easier. This is not a question of deciding facts, like a jury; it is a question of striking a balance between competing interests. That seems something that our senior judiciary are well able to do without being bolstered by any outside support.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has served with great distinction on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of course has a long record of interest in matters of justice generally. However, I indicated to him during a conversation beforehand that I was not persuaded by his argument. I was persuaded, albeit temporarily, by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, but in the end I share the views of other noble Lords who have indicated that this is perhaps an overelaborate and unnecessary addition to the framework that would otherwise exist. One point that struck me is that it is a little invidious for a serving High Court judge to sit with current or retired county court judges. I do not mean any disrespect to county court judges, but am not sure—
Lord Elystan-Morgan
There are no county court judges. There have not been any since the Courts Act 1971. They are now circuit judges.
Lord Beecham
It is a while since I appeared before any judge whether county court or circuit. I meant the equivalent position. The noble Lord is clearly aiming at that tier in the judicial system and it strikes me as a little excessive. Equally, the provision for majority verdicts and so on would be somewhat invidious. Regretfully, I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment and I dare say that the noble and learned Lord will join the majority of those who have spoken in saying that the amendment would not be acceptable.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, anticipated what the response would be. That said, it is only right to acknowledge the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, with reference to his own experience. I certainly accept that in moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, does not necessarily accept that we should be in the field of closed material proceedings. He made that clear, but he indicated that, in his view, it was necessary to have safeguards of the type proposed in his amendment. The Government’s position is that there are safeguards and in future groups of amendments we will be able to discuss the pros and cons of other potential safeguards.
As has been indicated, the amendment would require a judge in a closed material proceeding to sit with a panel of four additional judicial commissioners. In introducing these procedures the Government consider that we are providing the judiciary with another tool to deal with cases involving national security material. In the Justice and Security Green Paper, the Government floated the idea of a separate national security court with national security cases being diverted to it and different procedures being adopted in it. However, we concluded that national security is an aspect of disputes which may arise in any field of law and therefore it is better to keep cases in the ordinary courts where they arise while providing appropriate procedures, rather than moving different types of cases into one court where their only unifying factor is national security.
We are concerned that this amendment would be similar to creating a specialist court because it establishes an entirely different finder of fact for cases in which CMPs may be used. It envisages that the panel would preside over both the open and closed parts of the proceedings and this would fundamentally change the procedures adopted in the civil courts for cases in which national security is engaged. The oddity of what is proposed here can be illustrated by considering a case where national security material is important, but none the less is a small part of the material in the case. It might possibly even be a single document. Let us say that the court made a declaration that a CMP may be used and accepted an application that the document should be heard in closed proceedings. We would then be faced with proceedings which to all other intents and purposes were indistinguishable from other civil proceedings being presided over by a panel. We do not think that is right. My noble friends Lord Lester and Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point that single judges are well equipped to deal with this. My noble friend Lord Faulks made the point that subsection (3) very much changes the level and nature of the burden of proof and would materially change the nature of these proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated that it would also lead to cost and delay. I am always wary of talking about cost when we are dealing with such sensitive matters, but that would undoubtedly be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should be congratulated for coming up with an imaginative way of addressing his undoubted concerns. However, the Government believe it is better to retain the current judicial system in the civil courts and provide the judiciary with this new mechanism of the closed material proceedings rather than fundamentally alter the way in which the United Kingdom deals with civil proceedings by creating a finder of fact in cases of this sort.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who mentioned special advocates. They will provide the type of independent challenge that this amendment seeks to cover. I remind the Committee, as I am sure will happen on further occasions in our debates, of the case of M v Home Secretary in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, granted an appeal on the basis of a rigorous cross-examination in the closed session. That in itself is testament to the work of special advocates in these situations. I hope that I and other noble Lords who have contributed have gone some way to encouraging the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to withdraw his amendment, while recognising his motivation in putting it forward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Will my noble and learned friend reassure the Committee that it is not part of the Government’s aim to change the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules, which enable and require the courts to deal justly with cases?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hope I indicated that we do not want to create something that is entirely different—some sort of national security court. Consistent with the other aspects of civil procedure, this is an additional tool to have closed material proceedings for material that would be damaging to national security if disclosed but should nevertheless be available to the courts.
Lord Dubs
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response, as I am to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for obvious reasons. I thank him for his support. I cannot say that I have been overwhelmed by a tidal wave of approval from the rest of the Committee but that, as they say, is politics.
I have a very brief comment. The Bill will, after all, abolish juries. Given that we are abolishing juries, the proposal—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, these would be civil proceedings, which would be presided over by a single judge in any event. This does not relate to criminal cases, in which there would be a jury, but solely to civil proceedings.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, that is fair enough but the point of the judicial commissioners would be to help in establishing the facts. I have listened hard to the comments that have been made and will ponder them to see what sort of amendment might take into account the criticisms and would be appropriate when we get to Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, in moving Amendment 55 I shall speak also to Amendments 56, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. This group of seven amendments spans Clauses 7 and 8. Their underlying purpose is to improve the relationship between the special advocate and his client—if that is the right word—and the special advocate’s ability to carry out his duties effectively. The group breaks down into three subgroups.
First, Amendment 55 concerns Clause 7(1)(b), under which the rules of court require,
“that such an application is always considered in the absence of every other party to the proceedings (and every other party’s legal representative)”.
This is the point that I made in the debate on a previous group of amendments. My amendment seeks to replace “is always” with “may be”. I accept that some, perhaps most, matters will be considered with national security in mind and so will have to be heard in a closed court. However, I wonder whether there will never be any matter that could be argued with a special advocate and other legal representation present. Obviously, one question is: what constitutes national security? We have had a debate about the looseness of that term. At the moment we have no definition of it. Then there are other sorts of information, such as that provided by the police and generated within the UK, which might come up and would not be within the closed material proceedings. I suppose the principle behind this is to increase judicial discretion and therefore fairness—an issue on which the Government have placed great stress. My last point on this amendment is that requiring a judge to hear CMP applications in the presence of only one side under all circumstances does not seem to fulfil the principles of natural justice.
The second group consists of Amendments 56, 64 and 65. This group is about the nature of the appointment of a special advocate and ensuring it is made in a timely fashion. Amendment 56 inserts a new paragraph after Clause 7(1)(b):
“that where a party is excluded from such an application his interests are represented by a special advocate appointed in advance of the court hearing such application and, if the application is granted, for the duration of the section 6 procedure and trial”.
The important words here are “in advance” and “for the duration of”. In other words, the special advocate needs to be given time for preparation and for consultation. My noble and learned friend may say that this will happen anyway but I am told—I stand to be corrected—that there is no statutory requirement at present and it seems to me that in these special circumstances it might be worth while to consider that.
Amendment 64 covers the same points in Clause 8. Clause 8(1) states:
“The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party”.
For me, the critical word is “may”. My amendment seeks to replace “may” with “must”. Again, the reasons for that are self-evident and run parallel with the supporting arguments I have given for my natural justice amendment.
Amendment 65 amends the same clause by removing the words,
“in any section 6”
and replacing them with,
“as soon as practicable following”
an application. Applications should not go unchallenged. Therefore it needs to be certain that the claimant is represented at the time of his application and during the proceedings.
The last group, Amendments 63, 66 and 67, is intended to try to strengthen the relationship between the special advocate and the claimant. Amendment 63 takes us back to Clause 7 and inserts two new paragraphs regarding what the rules of court must provide where the proceedings are in connection with a Section 6 declaration. They make it clear,
“that the special advocate is afforded the opportunity to take instructions from the party whose interests he is appointed to represent, and … that the special advocate is at liberty to apply to the court at any time if he considers that any relevant material should be disclosed”,
if he feels that is opportune.
Amendment 66 goes back again to Clause 8. Clause 8(4) states:
“A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party”.
That seems to me to be strangely indifferent and distant. I understand the nature of the relationship implied by “represent” and that is why my amendment does not propose that but it replaces “not responsible to” with the slightly warmer and more positive phrase,
“responsible for representing the interests of”.
That understands the positive nature of it but does not imply the normal professional duty and relationship.
Finally, Amendment 67 adds four new subsections. The proposed Clause 8(6) requires the special advocate to provide gists of material. We shall come to that in the next set of amendments. The proposed Clause 8(7) permits the special advocate to withdraw if,
“he considers that he is prevented or otherwise unable to properly represent the interests of the excluded party”.
I hate the split infinitive “to properly represent” but it provides a quite important albeit rather nuclear approach regarding the special advocate in the sense that he could draw attention to how the case was being run by withdrawing if he felt that his position had become untenable.
On proposed new subsection (8) in Amendment 67, the requirement for the special advocate to make a report to the ISC about each case for which he is responsible is intended to be an additional element of control. Proposed new subsection (9) would impose a duty and responsibility on him to preserve the confidentiality of closed material, except for the gist to which I referred under proposed new subsection (6), and except where material may lead to a crime that should be referred to the CPS. I have said before about that that I am the treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. Some of the things that I believe have gone on in a rather shadowy way around that rather nasty practice could usefully be given some light. This would be a way in which that light could be shed.
To conclude, this group of seven amendments is intended to try to improve the quality of justice and the equality of arms by giving the special advocate a more defined role in Section 6 proceedings; ensuring that the special advocate attends proceedings where the issue is outside national security; ensuring that the special advocate is appointed in a timely fashion, before a Section 6 application is made; strengthening the ability of the special advocate to represent the claimant by ensuring proper access; and enabling the special advocate to resign if he feels that he cannot do his job properly.
The special advocates have circulated a paper to which I have already referred. I was particularly impressed by paragraph 17, where they list eight reasons why CMPs lack fairness and effectiveness. Three of their reasons seem to have relevance to this group of amendments. The special advocates think they are unfair because of the,
“prohibition on any direct communication with open representatives, other than through the Court and relevant Government body, after the SA has received the closed material”.
That is the first reason. The fifth reason refers to:
“A systemic problem with prejudicially late disclosure by the Government”.
The seventh reason refers to:
“The increasing practice of serving redacted closed documents on the Special Advocates, and resisting requests by the SAs for production of documents to them (i.e. as closed documents) on the basis of the Government’s unilateral view of relevance”.
These amendments are designed to tackle some of those problems. Some of the others in the list have importance, but those are the three most relevant. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I mention again that I am not a lawyer, but I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who has done a very great service to this country in the excellent work that he and others have done in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition.
I want to underline what the noble Lord said about Amendment 66 and to ask my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench whether the wording could not be less sweeping than that in the Bill. Clause 8(4) states that,
“a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent”.
I understand some of the problems and appreciate that there are difficulties here, but I ask my noble and learned friend to look again at the wording of the Bill. In particular, my understanding is that a special advocate is responsible for everything short of something that might put at risk national security; it does not mean that the special advocate has a way out of in any serious sense representing the interests of the person whom he has been appointed to represent. I think that that is the meaning of the wording of the Bill. Will my noble and learned friend consider wording that is less likely to raise any questions about the obligations of a special advocate for the people before them who have no other way to get across their case? I suggest that some wording that more precisely defines a special advocate’s duty and where it begins and ends would be much better than the wording currently in the Bill.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I support two particular aspects of this group of amendments. Following the comments of my noble friend Lady Williams, I, too, agree with the wording in the Bill in relation to the duties and responsibilities of the special advocates. In fact, while the Joint Committee on Human Rights was taking evidence, with the special advocates and lawyers in front of us, questions kept coming up about what their professional duties were to their client, with whom they could not communicate. It seemed to me, as a former lawyer, that it was perhaps one of the safest areas in many respects to have a client because there was no way that you could be sued for negligence when you could not communicate with the person whom you were supposed to be representing. It is a very unusual situation to put a professional in. We asked whether the Bar Council had given any guidance to advocates in this situation. I, too, found it very harsh for the Bill to say that the advocate is not responsible for the interests of the person whom they represent and I think that some more positive duty in the Bill would assist.
I also support proposed subsection (7) in Amendment 67, although it is not clear because it is an extension of the professional duties. Normally it is very clear to lawyers that they can withdraw from a case in certain situations, which are outlined in professional guidance. It is not clear whether a special advocate would have the same ability to withdraw from proceedings. I was always amazed that you could often be faced with two lever-arch files of A4 paper that contained the case papers, and when you got to trial, the trial boiled down to one or two key issues. In a particular case the issues may boil down to information as to where the claimant was on a particular day, and that becomes central to the case. So there may be one or two determining facts in a case. An advocate might be faced with information from the police and security services putting a connotation on certain facts, and be unable to turn to their client and say, “Where were you in August?”. In those circumstances the advocate might feel professionally that they could not represent the client’s interests properly. It is a corollary, I believe, of the situation that I raised in relation to previous amendments. In certain cases the judge may be in that situation as well, where one or two facts are so key to a case that, without hearing the claimant’s explanation of those facts, the case cannot be determined fairly. So this subsection gives the special advocate clarity that they can, in those circumstances, withdraw from the case. Therefore I support my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, my answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is that regrettably Clause 8(4) is wholly accurate because the nature of the special advocates and the task that they are required to perform is that they are not responsible to the individual in whose case they are appearing. They are not responsible because they cannot tell the person concerned the information that is known to them, as the lawyer in the case. They cannot ask the individual to comment on that information or to give instructions to them on that information. If they speak to the individual concerned, what the individual tells them—the special advocate—may be wholly irrelevant to the case, unknown to the client.
Although the special advocate system is made available as being better than no representation at all, it is inherently and fundamentally unfair in that the individual concerned does not know the nature of the case against them; and nothing that the special advocate does, however competent and industrious they are, can affect that. I therefore think that there is no advantage in seeking to supply in the Bill what would be a fig leaf to conceal the reality of the situation; and the reality of the situation is precisely as it is put in Clause 8(4).
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it also raises a very interesting question about which all lawyers will be concerned: who pays? When the special advocate is appointed in civil proceedings, does the losing party pay? Does the person who made the application—namely, the state—pay, win or lose? Where do costs lie in an event like that? When you have a provision in the Bill such as Clause 8(4) here, which states that the,
“special advocate is not responsible”,
to the claimant, how can the claimant possibly be responsible for his costs?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the whole role of the special advocate is inherently unsatisfactory and is an exception to what we understand to be a normal way of proceeding in accordance with general notions of fairness. However, it is a practice that has become well established; it has evolved. There are a number of special advocates who have performed their roles with distinction and effectiveness, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said in a much-quoted judgment. Many of their concerns, referred to earlier in the debate, were directed towards the way in which material was disclosed and the lateness and inadequacy of such disclosure. There may be much in those criticisms. They are fairly familiar incantations from advocates, whether the proceedings are closed or open. They do not reflect well on anyone who is responsible for late disclosure in a case.
We should bear in mind that judges have shown themselves particularly astute at protecting parties whose cases are heard in a closed session. If there is unsatisfactory practice on the part of the Government in terms of late disclosure or not giving special advocates fair access to material that will enable them to do their task, that is not going to improve the Government’s prospects and will be reflected, I suggest, in the way in which the judge approaches the case altogether.
While I have considerable sympathy for what lies behind these amendments, I would respectfully suggest that the position of the special advocates is quite correctly set out in Clause 8(4). It is not an ideal situation but it is a situation that has developed, and I trust the judges to respond appropriately to the demands that this particular procedure presents.
Lord Gold
My Lords, I am concerned that, if the special advocate is made responsible, there is a greater risk that he will rely on this amendment and withdraw from the proceedings. Although this is not a perfect situation, it is better that the advocate is there and does not withdraw; otherwise there is no representation or no points made independently at all.
Baroness Manningham-Buller
My Lords, I want to comment on one of the amendments in this group. Looking at the first part of Amendment 67, I understand what this amendment is trying to do, which is to improve the relationship—or, indeed, to create the relationship. However, the special advocate is not able to judge the damage that would be caused by a summary. It is the relevant person who is defined in the Bill who prepares any summaries of material. I do not think that this is workable because the special advocate, however briefed he is, will not understand necessarily the sensitivities behind the intelligence and the damage that would be caused.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I would just point out that Amendment 62, which has not been included with this group of amendments, will deal with a particular way of trying to alleviate the problems about the special advocate. We will come to that in the next group.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Faulks describe—accurately, one has to concede—the role of the special advocate and the limited responsibility that he has to the person whose interest he is appointed to represent, one is bound to come back to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and ask whether there is not a field that my noble and learned friend the Minister ought to consider—namely the degree to which we might fairly increase permitted disclosure to the person whom the special advocate is appointed to represent. There ought to be a guiding principle, consistent with what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, that there should be as much communication as is consistent with the interests of justice, short of disclosing material to the party from whom some disclosure that is prejudicial to national security is withheld. The special advocate’s position could be effectively carried out without compromising national security if some movement in that direction were to be conceded. It may be that my noble friend’s amendments do not achieve precisely that balance, but at the moment we have a system that is so restrictive of communication that it destroys the public confidence in the special advocate system that there might be.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, as are the amendments to follow which deal with the position of special advocates. The Constitution Committee, in its report of 15 June, made reference to the earlier report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and stated:
“The use of Special Advocates has proven to be highly controversial”.
The report then quoted the 2010 report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which stated that, even with the use of special advocates, the closed material procedure,
“is not capable of ensuring the substantial measure of procedural justice that is required”.
The Constitution Committee report continued:
“The Special Advocates themselves have voiced grave concerns as to the limitations inherent in their role. They submitted a … response to the Green Paper”,
which stated:
“Our experience as Special Advocates … leaves us in no doubt that CMPs are inherently unfair; they do not work effectively; nor do they deliver real procedural fairness”.
The Constitution Committee report added that even the Court of Appeal—which commended the special advocate system and said that it,
“enjoys a high degree of confidence among the judiciary”—
pointed out that the system is,
“‘inherently imperfect’ and that the system ‘cannot be guaranteed to ensure procedural justice’”.
Those are significant criticisms, even allowing for the efforts made by the distinguished body of men and women who serve as special advocates. I refer again to the evidence to the Select Committee about the special advocates, particularly the evidence of Mr McCullough, who was clear about the problems they faced. He said that the best they can do is,
“very limited indeed, particularly given the nature of intelligence material, which, very often, requires inferences to be drawn from circumstances that may have a sinister explanation … We, as the Special Advocates, are in great difficulties in displacing the sinister explanation if we cannot take instructions from the person who is in a position to provide the innocent explanation. So that is a fundamental difficulty”,
that they find themselves in under the Bill. In answer to a question from my noble friend Lady Lister in the same evidence session, he said that the legislative form of words that could be devised,
“would simply be that there is an obligation to give a minimum level of disclosure, which would enable the affected person to give effective instructions to their own representatives or to their Special Advocate. It would not be difficult to draft”.
That rather follows the line of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in commending a procedure that would safeguard the element of national security but allow instructions—potentially, at least—to be given.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this has been a very important debate on the role of the special advocates in the proceedings which are proposed in this part of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for the way in which he introduced his amendments, in which he gave a very clear and concise indication of the purpose of each amendment and what the effect would be. That helped to set the tone for a very useful debate, and I appreciate the contributions from colleagues across the Committee.
Amendment 55 raises an important procedural point on how the application process for closed procedures would work in practice. My noble friend and I agree that it is essential that we balance fairness and national security. I hope I can set out why the balance has been struck in the way that it has and that the proposals put forward in the Bill are indeed fair.
Clause 7 means that an application for closed proceedings is always considered without any other party to the proceedings or their legal representatives being present. The amendment tabled by my noble friend would allow the court the discretion to allow another party into the application stage of the proceedings. Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend that special advocates are not excluded from the process of determining whether material should go into open or closed proceedings. Clause 7(1)(b) does not have that effect. Rather, it is to be read in the light of Clause 7(1)(a), which involves the application for material to be shown to the courts, special advocates and the Government only. Where Clause 7(1)(b) says,
“in the absence of any other party”,
it is not meant to exclude those referred to in Clause 7(1)(a). I hope that gives reassurance.
I indicated in an earlier debate that, by virtue of a later clause in the Bill, the role of the special advocates is there at the application—the original gateway stage, as we have come to call it—as well. At stage 2 of the CMP process there is a detailed document-by-document consideration during which special advocates can challenge each piece of sensitive material and make representations to the judge about why it should go into the open or be summarised, as well as make representations on the weight given to that material. This is what special advocates have done and do under current CMP cases very effectively indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked how many times more information was made available. I am not sure whether that information is available. If it is, I will certainly share it, not only with the noble Lord but also with the Committee. However, in every case under the current statutory closed material proceedings, and indeed, I rather suspect, under those before the Al Rawi judgment where sometimes closed material proceedings were held with the concurrence of both parties, there have been incidents where specific pieces of evidence or specific documents have been admitted, allowed to be disclosed or ordered to be disclosed, so it may not be possible to give the full details in every case.
It is worth pointing out that there have been cases where, as a result of the work of the special advocates, the case for the excluded party has been successful. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in M v Secretary of State for the Home Department has been quoted on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House during these debates and clearly makes the point about the effectiveness with which the special advocates go about their work.
It is important to emphasise again that the judge will have a similar level of flexibility available to him or her under PII. For example, the judge will have the power to refuse non-disclosure, to permit non-disclosure of only parts of a document—in other words, redaction —to require summaries or gists, or to require a party to take action for refusal to disclose or summarise, for example, not to take certain points, or indeed to make concessions.
Where Article 6 so requires, the judge will always approach decisions about whether individual pieces of material are to be heard in closed proceedings from the perspective of the need to ensure that the proceedings are fair. Judges will refuse applications for material to be heard in closed proceedings where this is required by Article 6 fairness, and can order the Secretary of State not to rely on a particular argument if the Secretary of State is not willing to disclose material relevant to that point.
It is important to note that the application for a closed procedure could have open and closed parts. Only sensitive information which would damage national security would result in a proceeding taking place without the other parties, and I hope this explanation sets out the balance we have sought to strike.
Amendments 56, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 tabled by my noble friend concern the special advocates, and from the debate there is clearly concern in your Lordships’ House about the role of special advocates. These amendments highlight the important issues of how they are appointed and how they carry out their functions. I will endeavour to set out why I believe we have the necessary provisions in the Bill to allow the special advocates to operate as effectively as possible while at the same time safeguarding national security.
Lord Beecham
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could deal with this matter by accepting a slight modification to the wording so that there “must” be an appointment of a special advocate unless the party declines to accept the appointment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is a helpful suggestion. I am always wary of saying that, as it might cast doubt on what has been put in an earlier statute which is intended to do the same thing. An absolute requirement may lead to a special advocate being appointed in circumstances where it would be almost impossible for the person to function. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that it is our intention that whenever an excluded person wants a special advocate, a special advocate will be appointed. I note what he says. Without wanting to cast doubt on what is in other statutes, we shall certainly have regard to what he says.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I appreciate that there is always the danger of what Lord Wilberforce once described as the “austerity of tabulated legalism”. I ask my noble and learned friend whether it is absolutely clear that, in exercising the rule-making power under Clause 7, nothing will be done to disturb the overriding objective, which is to enable the court to decide the case justly? That is a fundamental principle which must not be overridden, whatever the technical detail may be.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I would want to reflect on what the “austerity of tabulated legalism” actually means. We have had exchanges in earlier debates and we have set out why an express reference to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into the Bill. I hope that my noble friend is assured by that. I am about to get to the point made by my noble friend Lady Williams. I will get there eventually.
Baroness Berridge
Following on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Lester about the overriding objective to act justly, if there is not a special advocate in the closed material proceedings, our courts will be hearing only one side in a completely unchallenged format. Therefore, is it not better to have the mandatory requirement? Even having a special advocate there who we know does not have an ordinary relationship with the client enables a more judicial decision to be made. Confidence in our courts will be more likely to be upheld if there is somebody probing potentially at the truth and not just acting on behalf of the claimant. One-sided proceedings could damage confidence in our judicial decisions.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The point I was making to my noble friend is that we are dealing with a rare and exceptional circumstance where an excluded person has indicated that they do not wish to appoint or provide instructions to a special advocate. Before acceding to my noble friend’s point, one would have to consider the almost impossible position that would put a special advocate in. It would be very difficult, if not impossible. That is why this is phrased as it is. It is very unlikely that that would happen. I am not aware that it has happened, but no doubt others who have practised will be aware. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is shaking his head. He is not aware of circumstances where that has happened. The great likelihood is that the excluded person will want a special advocate appointed to do the very kind of job that my noble friend rightly articulates.
My noble friend Lady Williams referred to the particular provisions in Clause 8 and to Amendment 66, which would remove the fact that a special advocate is not responsible to the party whose interests they are representing. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed very clearly why that provision is there in the form in which it is. The Bill makes clear that while the excluded party is not the client of the special advocate, the special advocate is specifically appointed to represent the interests of the excluded person. We believe that it is not possible to go further and to permit the special advocate and the excluded party to have a lawyer-client relationship. I fully understand my noble friend’s point but I think that the subsection is a product of the way in which the role of special advocate has developed. The concept of a party’s legal representatives being privy to information which is not disclosed to the client raises serious ethical and professional problems. That is why the provision is there. I think I am right in saying that it is reflected in some of the other statutory provisions where there are closed material proceedings.
Amendment 67 introduces a responsibility on the special advocate to provide a summary of closed material to the excluded party. There are two important aspects to that. First, the question of whether a summary should be provided is and should continue to be in the hands of the judge. It is the judge who will determine whether a summary of the evidence should be made available to the other party, whether this can be done without harming national security or whether it is deemed necessary for the proceedings to be fair, even where damaging to national security. Secondly, the special advocate, as I have indicated, is not in a position to determine harm to national security by deciding what information can be passed on to the excluded party. Rather, it is for the security and intelligence agencies to undertake this assessment. Special advocates have accepted that communication to the individual regarding the substance of closed material presents difficulties and may well not be possible without the involvement of the court and, in particular, the Government, to avoid the risk that inadvertently damaging disclosures are made. Mr Nick Blake, who is now a High Court Judge, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2007 while still a special advocate. In that evidence session he acknowledged that changing the rules to allow communication after service of closed material would put enormous responsibilities on special advocates not to disclose information inadvertently. We know that special advocates take that responsibility very seriously indeed. That is why we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the special advocates to determine the summary of the evidence to be made available.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, this was a menu of issues that I felt we ought to discuss today. I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friends Lady Williams and Lady Berridge for their support on Amendments 66 and 67. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did us non-lawyers a favour by revealing the full neutrality—or less than neutrality—of the special advocate. Describing my amendment as a “fig leaf” may have been a bit brutal, but it was at least clear. We now know where we stand, even if we are not reassured by it. I say to my noble friend Lord Gold that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the explanation given by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, to say that a special advocate has to stay because it is better that he stays, even if he does not like doing the job, than for the case not to be able to carry on, seems to be a strange way of following justice. My noble friend Lord Faulks seemed to be dangerously close to saying, “This is as good as it is going to get. Let’s trust the judges”. If we are not careful, we will put too much weight on the judges and on their judgment. We need to provide some buttress and support to them in their difficult choice and the difficult task that they carry out.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his extensive summing up. I am convinced by the arguments on Amendments 55 and 63. On Amendment 64, my noble and learned friend said that a claimant may not want to have a special advocate. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the nature of the relationship, it seems that the claimant has virtually no interest in this at all. On “must” be appointed, it would be a good idea if he were appointed, because at least it would be better than nothing happening at all. That is an important issue and it is made more important by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has illuminated the nature of the relationship or non-relationship.
With regard to Amendment 67, I am not suggesting that the ISC should have judicial scrutiny. I am trying to find a mechanism that will enable some body in which the Government, Parliament and society can have confidence to cast an eye over the way this procedure is working and ensure that the very important delicate balance, which we all know exists between national security and individual liberty, is maintained.
The speaking notes that officials prepared for my noble and learned friend did not get to the heart of what I was driving at. However, a lot of useful information was given by my noble and learned friend. I am extremely grateful to him and to all other noble Lords. I am sure that there are bits that we will want to come back to, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am afraid that I have another group of amendments. In moving Amendment 57, I will also speak to Amendments 60, 61 and 68. Other amendments in this group, Amendments 58 and 59, will be spoken to by noble Lords more experienced in the law than I am. Again I await with some relief the arrival of the heavy artillery.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to encourage the use of gisting as a means of ensuring equality of justice. I accept that the amendments are quite challenging in the form that they have been put down, but I ask my noble and learned friend to see that they are balanced by the duty of confidentiality that was imposed on special advocates in my Amendment 67, which was in the group that we were just discussing.
Simply put, Amendment 57 omits Clause 7(1)(c), which imposes a duty on the court not to allow gisting. That strikes at the root of what this group of amendments is trying to achieve.
Amendment 60 takes Clause 7(1)(d) and replaces the words “consider requiring” with the word “require”, so that,
“if permission is given by the court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the relevant person to provide a summary”,
would read,
“it must require the relevant person to provide a summary”.
As I said, the aim is to widen the use of gisting. Amendment 61 would omit Clause 7(1)(e) because it is again dependent on the national security definition and has in part been covered, as I said in my introductory remarks, by the duty of non-disclosure imposed by Amendment 67.
Finally, Amendment 68 would omit Clause 10(1) because I am not quite clear what it means. It seems to repeat Clause 7(1)(c) and I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend could explain why we need it.
In Committee, all our debates have had a pre-eminent underlying theme: how to balance the liberty of the subject with the need for national security and the judicial process. Gisting is one way to help that balance. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 58 and 59 because of pre-emption.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I speak to Amendment 58 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Clause 7(1) contains five paragraphs of which (a), (b), (d) and (e) are largely procedural. But paragraph (c), which states that,
“the court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security”,
goes to the heart of the issue. Does the judge have any function when he is considering an application? Can he carry out a balancing exercise in which he can weigh the interests of not disclosing material against the interests of justice?
My amendment is simple. I note that my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have a similar one to follow. I will not weary your Lordships with the argument for any length of time. It introduces the instruction to the judge that he must balance his decision and not simply follow a rubric that is laid out for him by the statute as currently drafted.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am certainly not the heavy artillery to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred, but I will offer him some small arms fire in support. Amendment 59 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. As with all the amendments in this group, and as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, it is a further attempt to address the core problem with which the Committee has been concerned in relation to Part 2 of the Bill: that is, the need to ensure that the court is given power to order a CMP in the exceptional cases in which such a need arises, but only where there is no other fair and proper means of balancing justice and security.
Amendment 59, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, is in similar terms to his Amendment 58. It would ensure that the rules of court would require the judge to ask whether the damage that the disclosure would do to national security would outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. The Bill as drafted, as I understand it, would enable a CMP to be imposed even if the judge concludes that the damage done by not moving to a CMP was minimal, and even if the damage to fairness by denying open justice was substantial on the facts of the individual case. That cannot be right, especially when, as we have previously debated, a decision by a judge not to adopt a CMP would impose no obligation on the Secretary of State to disclose the material, because they would have the option of not continuing to defend the proceedings.
Amendment 59 is designed to implement the objective that was stated by the independent reviewer of terrorism, Mr David Anderson QC, in his oral evidence of 19 June to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said:
“The closed material procedure is a weapon that could usefully be added to a judge’s armoury, but it should be for the judge to decide on the fairest way to dispose of a case”.
At present, Clause 7 prevents that desirable objective from being achieved.
I will speak also to Amendments 60 and 62 in the group, to which I have added my name. Amendment 60 would require the judge, if ordering a CMP, not just to “consider requiring” a summary of the closed material to be provided to the other parties—it would require that such a summary of the closed material be provided.
Amendment 62 would require the court to ensure that the summary of the closed material contained sufficient information to enable the excluded party to give effective instructions to his legal representatives and to the special advocate. It would require the summary to satisfy that test even if it would impinge on national security. The reasoning behind Amendment 62 is that it sets out the bare minimum necessary to ensure a fair hearing. It is based on the criteria that were stated by the Appellate Committee of this House in the AF case in 2009 in relation to control order cases. Sufficient information was required by the Appellate Committee in a control order case to enable the subject to give effective instructions, even if such disclosure would have damaged national security. I declare an interest: I was counsel to AF in that case.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, my name appears on some of these amendments, and I will briefly make a couple of points. I say first to my noble friend Lord Hodgson that he makes a mistake if he refers to me as heavy artillery, since I was the most inefficient gunner officer during the Suez invasion. I lost an entire water-carrying convoy, and laid a smokescreen with 100-metre gaps in it. I do not regard myself as heavy except in a physical sense. Further, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to Blackstone Chambers, which is my chambers as well. However, I make it absolutely clear than under the cab rank principle, many members of my chambers have appeared on the other side in these cases. Certainly, although I listened to Ben Jaffey, I regard the fact that I am in his in chambers as immaterial.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said almost everything that needs to be said, except that the Joint Committee on Human Rights itself recommended what is now Amendment 62. In paragraph 106 of its report, it recommends that,
“the obligation to disclose sufficient material to enable effective instructions to be given to an individual’s special advocate should always apply in any proceedings in which closed material procedures are used”.
In the previous paragraph, the report quotes my noble friend Lord Carlile as saying that AF standards—that is, these disclosure standards—,
“should apply to all proceedings in any event. I can see no respectable argument against gisting in any circumstances”.
The JCHR report concludes: “We agree”.
My other point is that although I am keen on the European Human Rights Convention setting minimum international standards, in this kind of area it is the common law standards and the standards of Parliament that really set fairness in this country. I sometimes worry that reliance on Article 6 of the convention, in a system where the civil law is very strong, may actually diminish the strength of the common-law system. So I hope that the fact that these amendments have the blessing of the all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, of the special advocates and of my noble friend Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, as well as of those who spoke in this debate, will carry great weight with the Government.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I agree with my legal colleagues in this House about the need for gisting as a step towards creating greater fairness. In my view, there has to be an obligation to disclose because the detainees in these cases—I have acted in them—are deeply disadvantaged. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has described powerfully the bewilderment and disappointment in detainees when an order is made against them, but they have not understood the case against them. I shall give an example because sometimes that helps us to root our understanding of why something might matter.
I took a case where a young man was to be deported on the grounds of concerns about national security. The gist of the case against him suggested that he had been present at a meeting in a house he shared with many other students at which discussions were held that were of concern to the authorities. Because the gist of the case was offered to us, it was possible to show that at the time the meeting took place the young man had been using a computer that was linked to the university in order to work on his thesis. The interactivity showed that he had been involved in quite complex, difficult work on his computer, which meant that he could not have been participating in and party to the meeting taking place in the house. That was one of the features of the case that made a real difference, but we would not have known about it if the gist had not been given to us. The force of something can only be brought home to those not involved in these cases by the use of a real example. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described people sitting in the court and being mystified by the process. That drives home just how unacceptable it can be.
I strongly urge that we do this least thing in trying to address the concerns about the whole business of closed material proceedings.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, perhaps I may take a few moments to make four short points in support of Amendment 62, tabled in the name of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Gisting presents great advantages, above all of which, in a headline, is the advantage of fairness. First, it compels the Government’s advocates to focus on the real reasons for pursuing their particular point. Using the very good example cited by the noble Baroness, it enables them to see where they are wrong because an answer can be given if the gisting occurs. Secondly, it shortens the proceedings. If the gist is given, there have been quite a number of cases where the individual has seen that it is not worth opposing the application because he knows perfectly well where he was or what activity he was engaged in at a particular time. Thirdly, it is a fair process, or at least it is as close to a fair process as we are going to be able to achieve when dealing with national security. My fourth reason for supporting Amendment 62 relates to the other words in it which do not deal with gisting of itself. It concerns the ability,
“to enable the excluded party to give effective instructions to his legal representative and special advocate”.
I know that this is going to arise a little later too. To improve the procedure for arrangements to be made under the rules of court, it is absolutely essential for the individual to be able to give instructions to special advocates just as they can give instructions to their own counsel.
I think that this three-line amendment covers a multiplicity of issues and should be supported. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will see the sense of it.
Lord Judd
My Lords, perhaps it is an appropriate moment for someone who is not a lawyer to add a layman’s word. We debated these issues very fully at Second Reading and I believe that the helpful amendments before us are a good attempt to try to meet some of the anxieties that were expressed then. Speaking as a layman, what has always been important to me is the principle which has emerged from the history of our judicial system: someone who is accused of an offence should know the case against them so that they can defend themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about how there is an element of unfairness in what is happening. That is true, but I think it is more fundamental than that. It is not just about unfairness; it is that we are breaching the principles of justice as they have emerged. That is what has happened because of the dreadful and appalling security issues which have arisen. As these procedures are applied, every possible effort should be made to keep the priority of justice at the forefront. Anything that can be done to achieve this should be pursued.
I am fearful that a certain sort of tendency could develop, but it should not be assumed that this is a change of gear which can easily be made in the process of a case. There must be a real and specific reason for doing it, and it should be limited to the fewest possible occasions. Even then, it is terribly important that we are certain that the principle of justice has been very much in the forefront of the minds of the judge and of everybody else before we pursue the technique.
We know that in the cause of combating terrorism and the extremism that leads to terrorism is crucial not to give ammunition to the cynical extremists who seek to exploit the impressionable with plausible argument. I cannot think of anything that has the potential to give more ammunition to an extremist wanting to recruit an impressionable person than for him to be able to say, “Look, there has not been proper justice in this case”. From that standpoint, the arguments we are putting forward are central to the issue of anti-terrorist and security policy itself. I am absolutely convinced of that. The people who have put forward these amendments are doing us a good service in terms of upholding the principles of justice and avoiding the terrible pitfalls of counterproductivity in the fight against extremism and terrorism.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in what one might call a very short interval for non-lawyers to speak. He has pointed to some crucial considerations that need to be borne in mind. I will turn for a moment to Amendments 58 and 59, which are crucial to a fair outcome of this complicated debate. In doing so let me say that I strongly agree with those who have argued for gisting as a way of moving a bit closer towards a just outcome for those who cannot be openly represented and, indeed, cannot instruct their representatives how to behave. It helps the people concerned feel that some sort of justice has been done.
We heard in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the attempt to define national security in a way that would narrow down the implications to what was really of crucial importance to the nation. The response from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench showed how difficult it is to make a definition of that kind. However hard we try there are always ways in which it is, as he said, either too narrow or too broad.
In Amendment 58, tabled by my noble friends Lord Thomas and Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Lester, we have a way of getting back to a balance between what is represented by the need for security and what is represented by, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the principle of justice upon which the whole of the British legal tradition has been based. That is exactly right. We have heard a paean of praise to our judges, saying that they are very capable of making difficult balanced judgments of this kind. The attempt to give back to them the decision about what that balance is is one that we can reasonably feel is in competent hands, where justice is likely to be the outcome.
What happens if one does not have Amendments 58 and 59 in this Bill? We have neglected this, or perhaps we had an earlier brief discussion about this at the beginning of the day’s proceedings but we have moved a long way since. What happens if one regards national security as having such a primary place that one forgets the interests of justice almost altogether? An example of it is the attitude of the general public, where they believe themselves to be put in a position of extreme difficulty and inconvenience because of a ludicrous pursuit of security. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, gave us an example of that.
Let me give another one, the way in which the concepts of health and safety are now held in almost universal ridicule by the population of this country. They were an attempt to go too far, to intervene too much, to interfere all the way through, in the ordinary rights and liberties of citizens. When you are told that you have to cut down a chestnut tree for fear of a conker falling on somebody’s head, or when you are told that you cannot allow young boys to try climbing a tree, you get to the point where the general public feel that this is a ludicrous overstatement of so-called security and safety, and they become disinclined to take any notice. That is a trivial example.
There are more serious examples. My political memory goes back quite a long way. In our history we have cases all too often forgotten, where security has trumped fairness and justice and left behind a real weakness in our democracy. Perhaps the supreme example of that was the decision to introduce the principle of internment into Northern Ireland’s politics. Just before this I was the Minister of State for Northern Ireland. It meant two things quite quickly. The first was a strong sense of a breach with what has been a long tradition of this country, at least as far as its internal justice is concerned. Secondly—and I will never forget the words used—this became a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Even Lord Whitelaw, at that time Secretary of State, noticed how counterproductive internment was and how it led to more and more young Irish men and women letting themselves be recruited—signing up—for the production of terrorism. Internment was brought in in 1971 and was eventually dropped. Only after it was dropped was the path open to the Good Friday settlement and to what today is, if not a perfect, at least a much better outcome of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
I have not been here today as much as I might have been and I am grateful to my noble friend for agreeing that I might intervene, but I want to reinforce her point. I was a young soldier on the streets of Belfast in 1970. When we marched into Belfast and into the Ardoyne we were welcomed by the Catholics with butties, as they called them, and mugs of tea. A mere year later, as a result of internment and other matters which followed swiftly around the time of Bloody Sunday, we were the enemy. It took us the best part of two decades to recover that trust among the Irish population, directly as a result of events that she has described.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am grateful to my noble friend. Nobody knows more directly and more at first hand than he exactly of what he is speaking, given his long and distinguished service in Northern Ireland in several capacities.
A second example that I know about, because I was living there at the time, was that the dreadful atrocity of 9/11 produced a great wave of attempts to introduce more security legislation in the United States. After a while this included a certain disregard for some of the crucial rights of human beings there. American citizens found time and again, understandably given the terrible effects of 9/11, that their fundamental rights began to be disregarded in the interests of security. It was an extraordinarily difficult balance that to this day United States jurists feel strongly has gone against the basic liberties of the human being.
The third example is ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke movingly about his son and the dog across the street from No. 10 Downing Street. I might add that the Olympics are getting almost completely out of hand in the interests of what one might describe as an obsessive view about security. We go back to rather a trivial example. Yesterday I was in Trafalgar Square with my grandson. We went to see the famous Olympic clock that shows how many hours, minutes and seconds are left before the opening of the Olympic proceedings. However, in order to see the clock, which was approximately 40 yards into the square on a gloomy, wet evening, we had to pass no fewer than six security guards, and no fewer than three detailed and closely networked railings, which were impossible to pass, so we had to go round them in several directions to get anywhere. It took us about 20 minutes to cross Trafalgar Square, being asked all the way whether we had passports, what we were doing there and why, and other things like that. I am a great believer in creating job opportunities for young people, but I cannot help thinking that maybe a job working on, let us say, the refurbishment of older housing might be more constructive than sitting in Trafalgar Square stopping ordinary citizens like me from crossing it.
I am sorry to put it so strongly, but we are becoming obsessive on this issue. We are getting the balance badly wrong. This Bill is critical for the future of our liberties in this country and for the attitudes to justice of ordinary people whose support for that justice is critical in a democracy; there is no substitute for civic support for the rule of law. I plead with my noble friends on the Front Bench that they look closely at Amendments 58 and 59, which at least enable the judges in this country to restore a reasonable balance to the clear needs of national security, which I do not deny and which the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has put extremely well in this debate, recognising that there are two things to be balanced and not one thing to sweep away. I plead with my noble friend to consider accepting these amendments, because they are a crucial safeguard for the liberties of this country and which this Bill ought to include.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness and I am sorry to bring an end to this welcome interval from lawyers and to return briefly to the dry legalities of the Bill. The question in this Bill of who decides national security has troubled me. Clause 6 seems to suggest that the judge has some role in deciding it. Amendment 59 suggests that an exercise should be performed by the judge in which he or she can assess, by balancing the various processes—presumably roughly in accordance with the ex parte Wiley approach—which should come first, the interests of justice or national security.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 62. My noble and learned friend the Minister has outlined that this is a balance of security and fairness. In a closed material procedure, I do not think it is wrong to say that the national security issue is a higher priority for the Government who are party to the proceedings, and fairness is higher up the priority list for a claimant who has been excluded.
Let us take the example of a claimant who has been excluded from the hearing and is sitting in the corridor whiling away the hours while the proceedings go on, and turns to the rules of court that have been drafted and looks at Clause 7, as we have it, unamended. How is the claimant not going to conclude, when looking at those rules, that almost the sole interest the court is required to take into account is national security? According to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), the court has to consider giving a summary, but this is not required. To preserve the integrity of the court, Clause 7 is too constrained around the requirements of national security and does not bring in the need for fairness of the claimant, who will be sitting there wanting to know as much as possible about the evidence and, if possible, to know the gist of the case. Bringing in some consideration of the need for the claimant to have enough information to provide instructions is incredibly important. There must be some requirement given to the court to consider the issues of fairness under the rules.
Secondly, although I take full notice of the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, that the special advocates who are there on behalf of the excluded party cannot be the sole judge of whether national security is breached if a particular summary of the case is given, what would be the objection to including the special advocate in the process of deciding what the summary is? Perhaps they could be involved with the relevant party because, as the legislation is drafted, the duty of not revealing national security has in any event been given to the court, so why not have a process where at least the claimant would know that the special advocate is able to partake in that process to determine the summary and the court is the final gateway to ensuring that national security is not breached? Therefore, I support Amendment 62.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has identified and emphasised the crucial nature of Clause 7. It is the fundamental problem with the Bill that, despite the protestations of the Lord Chancellor, it gives little discretion ultimately to the judge as to whether the closed material procedure should be invoked. Clause 7(1)(c) requires the court to give permission if,
“the disclosure of the material would be damaging to the interests of national security”.
It seems clear that any disclosure of matters affecting national security would suffice to preclude the material being made available. Therefore, we come back to the position that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to, as enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
It is almost exactly 50 years since I first became acquainted with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, as a new student at University College, Oxford—where I was succeeded in due course, several years later, by the noble Lord, Lord Marks—and I have a great admiration for noble and learned Lord, who was a distinguished opponent of the South African regime. I find it rather surprising that he came to the conclusion that matters of this kind are a matter for the Executive and not the judiciary. It is not a view that can be recommended to your Lordships’ House. It strikes a dagger at the heart of our system, and the amendments before us provide the right approach to procuring a level of fairness that allows the judge to make a decision on the basis of a balancing exercise.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and others who have laid an emphasis on the need to have that balancing exercise carried out. The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas, Lord Pannick and Lord Lester, clearly are directed at securing that important balance and fulfilling the—unjustified—claims made for the Bill that ultimately it will be the judge who actually takes the decision; otherwise the decision is effectively made for him by the Secretary of State, and that is extremely undesirable. It follows that the amendments in relation to gisting, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described as a minimum requirement, also have their place in a system which is fair to the parties.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the application of the European Court of Human Rights. Although I am sure that he is clear in his own mind that there is no real conflict with the human rights legislation, there is, perhaps, a question about that. Clause 7(1)(e), to which other noble Lords have referred, makes it clear, in relation to gisting, for example, that a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be damaging to the interests of national security. However, it is apparently the position that the European Court has previously struck down decisions made under the existing closed materials procedure on the basis that they were incompatible with the right to a fair hearing which, of course, Article 6 prescribes.
The case law suggests—I am referring now to a briefing from Justice, the organisation concerned with civil liberties and matters of this kind—that,
“a person must be given as much disclosure—whether through the provision of documents, evidence or a summary—as is needed to secure a fair trial”.
It refers in its briefing to the case of A v United Kingdom, in which,
“the Grand Chamber concluded that where insufficient material had been disclosed to an individual subject to a control order”—
of course, we are not talking about control orders here but about a civil claim—
“this rendered the hearing unfair and incompatible with the Convention”.
The briefing also refers to the case of AF, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred. There must be a question as to whether the assurance of the noble and learned Lord, obviously given in good faith, that Clause 11(5) resolves these matters—because it emphasises the duties of the court under the Human Rights Act, such that,
“Nothing … is to be read as requiring a court or tribunal to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention”—
amounts to very much. On the face of it, it would appear that the provisions of the Bill, as drafted, would lead to conflict with Article 6.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is the noble Lord aware of a case I once did, Tinnelly and McElduff v UK, where there was a conclusive certificate of national security under our law which prevented these Northern Irish Catholics from having the merits of their religious discrimination claim heard at all when they were blacklisted? The Strasbourg court said that that was clearly contrary to the convention and therefore the national security certificate that had been cleared by the Minister and by the Northern Ireland courts, which said they had no alternative, was held to be in violation of the convention.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who brings another example of precisely the same point made in the briefing that I referred to and underlines the apparent discrepancy between the evident intentions of Clause 11(5) and the reality which would appear to be applicable. In looking at these amendments I think that your Lordships’ House may wish, when we come to Report—because we will not be voting today—to support the thrust of these amendments, which seek to import into what is patently an unsatisfactory procedure at the moment evidence of balance and fairness which would leave the decision where it ought to be, in the hands of the judge who is dealing with these matters, assisted, we hope, by the special advocate presenting a case on behalf of the other party to the case.
As matters stand, it does not look as though the Bill adequately reflects these requirements or, indeed, the requirements of Article 6. I hope that the Government will look again at the implications of the situation as it is now presented, bearing in mind the widespread concerns expressed around all these issues by eminent Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who was very clear that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not adequately deal with the need for fairness through a proper existing procedure. I thought that he made that case very effectively—as indeed did other noble Lords, legally qualified and not legally qualified—raising deep concerns about how the Bill will operate in practice, bearing in mind, again, that many of us still have to be persuaded that there is a substantial issue here, given that we have yet to be shown cases in which damage has been done by the system which has prevailed hitherto.
Of course, when it comes to disclosure the Government still have the last resort of not proceeding with the case. That has a financial cost and it may have other costs, but it preserves the rationale for the Bill’s provisions in that it preserves the interests of national security. If the Government feel that national security has to be protected, they can effectively stop the case by settling it or, perhaps, striking it out.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Does the noble Lord think that it is a demonstration of damage being done that the Government have been unable to defend themselves in such cases and have had to settle?
Lord Beecham
There cannot be two winners in these situations. It is certainly less than satisfactory that a case does not proceed to a final adjudication, and it may be that the Government are therefore, to some degree, a loser. However, the question is whether that consideration should take precedence over the rights of the individual, the other party to the case, to have a proper hearing and to put his side of the case. We have to make a choice, and the choice should be, “By all means let us preserve national security, if that is the ultimate requirement, but not at the expense of the other party, whose right to access to justice will have been obstructed”. That is the decision that we have to make. We have to do a balancing process ourselves, as legislators, and I hope that that is the line that we take.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful both to my noble friends and other noble Lords who brought these amendments forward and to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The amendments raise important issues concerning the Bill and it is therefore important that the House has had a thorough and well informed debate. I am acutely aware that noble Lords are concerned about the way in which the Bill draws the balance between the interests of national security and the role of the judge in providing fairness for parties in proceedings.
My noble friend Lady Williams is right to remind us—I do not know whether she used the words, but the sense of what she was saying was—that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and that it is important, whenever there are issues such as this, that we give considerable scrutiny to the way our laws are framed.
Amendments 57, 58, 59 and 68 would, if accepted, remove the obligation on the court not to allow information to be disclosed if it would damage the interests of national security. Instead, the court would have to balance the damage done to national security with the public interest in fair and open justice.
On a slightly technical point, my noble friend Lord Hodgson asked why we need Clause 10(1), which he thought was perhaps repetitious. The answer is that Clause 10(1) refers to the Section 6 proceedings as a whole, whereas Clause 7(1)(c) deals only with the document-by-document process at stage 2, which determines whether individual pieces of material will be heard in open court or in a CMP.
The Wiley balancing exercise has been referred to in this debate and I believe it underlies Amendments 57, 58, 59 and 68. It may help in presenting the case to set out some of the background to this, although I am acutely aware that a number of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate are well aware of it. However, the pertinent and pressing questions are often asked in the contributions from the non-lawyers and it is therefore important to set the response in context. The traditional method of protecting sensitive material in civil proceedings is for the Secretary of State to claim public interest immunity. Under PII, which is a common law regime, the Secretary of State certifies that disclosure of the evidence in question would be contrary to the public interest and that the interests of justice in favour of disclosure are outweighed by that of the public interest. The public interest could include the interests of national security, good international relations, the detection and prevention of crime, or any other aspect of the public interest.
In deciding whether to permit non-disclosure, a court will consider whether the Secretary of State has struck the right balance. The court will consider those aspects of the public interest that favour non-disclosure against those that favour disclosure: for example, the public interest in trials being fair, in justice being open and in cases being able to be fully reported. This is sometimes called the Wiley balancing test after an important case on PII.
Normally, a claim for PII will be supported by a ministerial certificate and will be considered by the trial judge. Unless the fact of a PII claim being made is itself too sensitive to be disclosed to the other party, for example because it might risk revealing the existence or identity of an agent, the other party will be able to attend the hearing. This will be with a view to persuading the court that, in carrying out the public interest balancing exercise, it should order disclosure of the documents in question, for example because of their likely high degree of relevance to the case. If the court refuses a PII claim, the Government will need to consider whether to settle the proceedings rather than disclose the damaging material.
The question that these amendments pose to the Government is why the court should not be able to consider whether there are overriding public interests that point to disclosure. In short, the Government consider that the approach in the Bill is the right one because it is in the national security context. The only ground on which a court may permit material to be heard in closed session is on the narrow one that disclosure of material would damage the interests of national security. Aside from the important countervailing fair trial issues, which, as we have heard and as I will return to, are explicitly dealt with in the Bill, the Government consider that it would be truly exceptional for a different aspect of the public interest to outweigh the public interest in preventing damage to the interests of national security.
The Government have considered this issue carefully and have introduced safeguards that we believe ensure that there is justice for claimants and that the judge will have a crucial role in the process. The Government are committed to putting as much information as they can into the public domain and to complying with our obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR. I think it is important to set out in detail how the Government have balanced the judicial role to ensure that as much information as possible is given to the claimant and made public.
It is important to emphasise that, in reality, the Bill contemplates a two-stage test to any application for a CMP. The result is that CMPs are available in tightly defined circumstances in which the judge is given the final say over the use of a CMP and a similar level of flexibility to that available to a judge under PII. The first test, which I think we went over during the previous day in Committee, is on application by the Secretary of State to the judge for a closed material procedure on the basis that a party would be required to disclose material in the course of the proceedings, the disclosure of which would damage the interests of national security. The judge will grant the application if he or she agrees with the Secretary of State’s assessment and make a declaration that a CMP can be used. I think my noble friend Lord Faulks said it would certainly not allow a flippant use or a flippant claim of national security. Indeed, I believe it would not allow one where the real motivation was not about national security interests being damaged at all but covering up or concealing embarrassment.
There is then the second stage, at which the judge considers the treatment of each individual piece of material, in particular whether it should be heard in open or closed proceedings. The judge has a number of important tools with which to ensure that the proceedings are held fairly. The sole ground on which material may be heard in a closed hearing is where the court accepts that disclosure would damage the interests of our national security. Where the court permits the material to be heard in closed procedure, the court must consider ordering summaries to be given to the claimant or permitting only parts of documents to be heard in closed proceedings—in other words, redaction. If the court refuses the application for material to be heard in closed proceedings, the relevant person, usually the Secretary of State or a government agency, is required either to disclose the material, or the judge can direct the relevant person to not rely on that material—in which case it will be excluded from the proceedings—to make concessions or to take such other steps as the court may specify. This is a similar level of flexibility to that which is available to the judge under PII and ensures that, in practice, the amount of material heard in open session where a CMP is available will not be less than had a PII exercise occurred instead. At all stages, the court will make the necessary orders to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a manner which complies with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government consider that the approach in the Bill is the right one in the national security context. It is used in other current CMPs such as TPIMs and SIAC. In any case, in practice, under current arrangements, if on the basis of its balancing test the court rejects a PII claim, in whole or in part, the Government use every tool available to them to ensure that that material remains protected—including, if necessary, withdrawing from the proceedings or settling.
Amendments 60 and 61 would require the court to order a summary of the closed material to be provided to the excluded parties and, in doing so, would remove the obligation to ensure that a summary of the closed material did not contain material the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security. There is already a provision for a judge to require disclosure where necessary for Article 6 to be enforced.
My noble friend Lady Berridge asked for special advocates to be involved in determining what that summary should contain in terms of Clause 7(1)(d). I can assure my noble friend that the special advocates are very much involved in that process. No doubt we will be arguing—and, as we have in past cases, arguing effectively—for as much information to be included as possible. We agree that information should be summarised if it can be. However, if these amendments were to be accepted, and the Government were unable to provide a summary due to the sensitivity of the information, the risk is that the Government would be forced to withdraw or settle. That would effectively mean that the problem we are trying to solve would still exist. Again, there would be silence on very important matters, there would be no final judgment for a judge and none of the questions posed by the claimant would be answered.
No one has sought to pretend that closed material procedures are better or as good as open proceedings, but we have said that second-best justice is better than no justice at all. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, indicated that we are dealing with circumstances where there is arguably a defence but one that under present arrangements cannot be advanced because to do so would damage the interests of national security. We are seeking to allow that defence to be put forward, albeit by means of a closed material procedure.
I appreciate the concerns about the claimant getting as much information as possible and the process being fair. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated at Second Reading that we have to look not just at Clause 7(1) but Clause 7(2) as it interacts with Clause 7(3)—if a party is unable to provide a summary, then the court can order that party to make concessions or to not rely on that material. These are very real safeguards.
Amendment 62, which my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have spoken to, and which was supported by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and by other noble Lords, suggests that the best way of ensuring compatibility with our European convention obligations is by adding to the Bill words that give effect to the judgment of your Lordships’ Judicial Committee in June 2009, in what I think is commonly known as case AF (No. 3). In that case, their Lordships ruled that for the stringent control orders before them, in order for the control order proceedings to be compatible with Article 6, the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him or her to enable them to give effective instructions to the special advocate in relation to these allegations. I hope I have summarised fairly what the Judicial Committee of the House determined.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My difficulty with my noble and learned friend’s reply is that he keeps saying: “I hope that Members of the House will be reassured”, but we need reassurance in the legislation itself. The problem is that there are no controlling principles. We do not have a written constitutional charter of rights, the nearest we have is the European convention, which is pretty vague and not tailored to these particular needs. When we come to Amendment 90 at night-time on Monday, where the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have tried to put in some constitutional standards, it will be interesting to see whether at least that is accepted. Does my noble and learned friend follow that what we seek to do is put some controlling criteria, other than ministerial assurances, in the Bill to make it constitutionally appropriate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I understand the point being made by my noble friend, but what is in the Bill goes beyond a ministerial assurance. What is in the Bill is that nothing in Clauses 6 to 11 or in any provision made by virtue of them is to be read as requiring a court or tribunal to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I will come to this more specifically in a moment, but these will be matters that will be determined by the court; it is not a matter of ministerial assurance. As we saw in the case of AF (No 3), the courts asserted what was required to make the proceedings consistent with the requirements of Article 6. What is required to achieve fairness in accordance with Article 6 is a matter to be determined by the courts in the context of each individual case. The AF (No 3) disclosure requirement will, of course, be applied by the court when it considers that the requirements of Article 6 so demand to ensure that fair trial requirements are met. However, this does not mean that the AF (No 3) formulation would or should apply in all cases that use these closed procedures. We submit that we must allow the judges to assess the level of disclosure required in each case to meet Article 6.
My noble friend Lord Faulks said that he anticipated that I might refer to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in the case of Tariq. I fully intended to do so. The deputy president of the Supreme Court said in that case:
“There cannot, after all, be an absolute rule that gisting must always be resorted to whatever the circumstances. There are no hard edged rules in this area of the law”.
Reference has already been made in this debate to Mr David Anderson QC, who is in favour of gisting. In January this year, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, reflecting on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, he said:
“The courts have … said that it is not a hard-edged area of law. In other words, it is one for them to decide on rather than for Parliament”.
Later he said,
“it is not an area where certainty can sensibly be provided by legislation ... I do not think I would like the legislation very much if it came out”.
Let me also remind your Lordships that the Justice and Security Green Paper suggested that we might consider legislating to clarify the context in which the AF (No 3) gisting requirement does not apply. The Government listened to the consultation responses, which held a majority view that situations in which the AF (No 3) disclosure requirement applied needed to be considered on a case-by-case basis in the courts. The Bingham Centre said:
“Establishing a statutory presumption as to the circumstances in which the AF (No 3) disclosure requirement applies would not avoid the need for the precise parameters of the principle being worked out in the courts. This issue cannot be resolved by domestic legislation alone but requires careful and detailed reference to ECHR and EU law. The content of UK legislation could not have any appreciable influence on the CJEU or ECtHR. Therefore we see no value in this suggestion. If anything, a legislative presumption would only complicate the law and lead to more rather than less litigation”.
I do not think there is any distance between us in trying to ensure fairness. I recognise the importance and significance of all the amendments, not least Amendment 62, but our position is that this would put hard edges into law where it is not desirable and where the courts themselves have indicated that they should be determined on a case-by-case basis. As I have also indicated, if in a particular set of circumstances the court’s view was that the gisting level required in AF (No 3) was the one required in that case, the regard the courts must have to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows them to require that. The common law is as much part of our legal system as statute law, and I believe that the courts will continue to be the guardians of individual rights to a fair trial and that further legislation on this provision is not only unnecessary but may even be counterproductive.
Lord Judd
The noble and learned Lord in his full reply referred to the special advocates being on board and being involved in the process. Does he agree they are involved in the process with one and a half hands tied behind their back, because they will have had no opportunity to discuss the really crucial issues with their client, who might well have something relevant to contribute to the deliberations going on? When we talk about it being better to have an imperfect system of justice than no system at all, what concerns some of us is that this is an exceptional process and the Government should look seriously at a belt and braces approach to make sure that it is exceptional. Otherwise there is a tendency over time for it to become just an alternative.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I fully accept—and it was said from this Dispatch Box in earlier debates—that it is very much seen as an exceptional procedure. It is not intended to be run-of-the-mill, and nor would we wish it to be seen as “creep”. It is meant to apply in only a very limited number of cases where the Government believe that they have a proper defence to cases made against them, but where at the present time it is not possible to deploy that defence because it would mean disclosing material which would be damaging to the national interest.
As for the earlier point, it has been said on a number of occasions that the role of the special advocates is crucial. It will be crucial in arguing over and determining which pieces of material should be disclosed and which should not and in making representations as to what should or should not be in any gist. However, as I indicated in an earlier debate, it is important to remember, too, that we are dealing with civil proceedings in which the defendant will almost certainly be the state and the claimant will be the person who has been excluded. Therefore, they will know full well what their case is as it is their own case that they will be advancing. Before the closed material is made available to the special advocate, there will be an opportunity for the person who knows what his or her case is to discuss it with the special advocate.
Finally, many judges have gone on record as praising the very valuable work that special advocates do in these cases. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise. Perhaps the noble Lord is not suggesting that, but it would be wrong to give the impression that special advocates are totally hamstrung. They have a very good track record, as has been recognised by a number of senior judges.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, the length of the debate and the breadth and depth of contributions have indicated how important gisting is. My noble friend Lord Carlile spoke about fairness, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, about balance, and my noble friend Lord Faulks about the dangers of not giving sufficient weight to the demands of national security. One of the problems with not practising law is that you do not have real-life examples, such as those produced by several noble Lords this evening, to back up the impact and give bite to their particular recommendations.
I shall briefly repeat what I said at Second Reading: my experience of working with, speaking to and meeting young Muslim men and women as part of the Speaker’s outreach programme in Birmingham and the West Midlands shows that they have a keen interest in how our justice system works and whether it delivers fairness and balance to all sections of our community. While these are probing amendments, I am sure that this is an issue to which we will come back. Now that my noble and learned friend has given us a lot of helpful information and a careful explanation of the procedure to be gone through, we will have time over the summer to reflect on this. We shall see where we come out, but I am sure we will want to have a further crack at this to make sure that our society and the communities within it do not feel that the justice system does not deliver fair, open and transparent justice to them. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Education (Exemption from School Inspection) (England) Regulations 2012
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
That this House regrets that the Education (Exemption from School Inspection) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1293) are both unnecessary and counterproductive as they would undermine the principle of all public services being inspected on a regular basis; undermine the professional oversight that is an essential part of good school governance; and run the risk of damaging children in cases where schools that have not been inspected then go into decline.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, the background to this Motion of Regret is the regulations that determine the framework for inspection of schools in England by Ofsted. Section 5 of the Education Act 2005 sets out the duty of the chief inspector to inspect schools at such intervals as are prescribed in regulations. The 2005 regulations made under Section 5 provide that the maximum interval between school inspections should be five years. However, the Education Act 2011, the passage of which we debated last year, now enables the Government to exempt specific categories of school from the chief inspector’s duty to inspect.
This is the first set of regulations to be made under the new power and has the effect of exempting from any further routine inspection any school that receives the highest Ofsted grading, which, as we know, is currently “outstanding”. Thus, in future, every school that is rated outstanding will not be routinely inspected further by Ofsted unless the school itself requests an inspection, in which case it will have to pay for it. The Government resisted amendments in Committee that would allow parents or local authorities to trigger an inspection.
The Government’s arguments in support of the change appear to be twofold. First, they say that exempting outstanding schools from future inspections will reduce, in the Government’s parlance, the “burdens” on such schools. Secondly, they say that it will enable Ofsted to target resources on less successful schools and so will have a cost benefit. Both arguments have some credence. However, for many years now, under successive Governments, Ofsted has moved towards a risk-based, proportionate approach to determining the frequency and intensity of inspection of particular schools. Successful schools can already expect to be inspected only once every five years. Therefore, risk assessments already enable Ofsted to target its resources effectively. However, to exempt schools from routine inspection entirely, and for schools to know that they henceforth they will be exempt, is not simply an extension of these developments. It is a significant qualitative change of a completely different order. It is wrong in principle and will have all sorts of adverse consequences in practice. I shall touch on both concerns—the principle and the practical implications.
The issue of principle derives from questions about the role of government in the delivery of our major public services. I would argue that the Government of the day have a duty both to the public generally, whose taxes pay for those services, and to the citizens who use the services. Surely the Government should be the guardians of both value for money and the quality of the public services provided. It is largely through regulatory and inspection regimes that the Government discharge their duty to service users and the wider public. That is why we have inspection of hospitals, GPs, police services, children’s homes and care homes. All major public services, whether provided directly by public bodies or indirectly through private, voluntary or independent organisations, are subject to inspection regimes to protect users and taxpayers. I know of no other services in which categories of provider are exempt. I would be grateful if the Minister could identify any for us, because I could not find any.
Because, for these very good reasons, this principle is so deeply embedded in the way we deliver public services; because many of these services are critical to people’s well-being; and because the people using them are often vulnerable in one way or another, it would be unthinkable for, say, excellent hospitals or care homes to be allowed to be completely exempt from future inspections. We can all predict the reaction if this were to be the case, so there are crucial questions that the Minister—with respect—has to answer, because they were not answered in this or the other place during the passage of the Education Act 2011. Why do the Government think exemption is acceptable for schools but not for hospitals, care homes and constabularies? Is this not an abdication of the Government’s duty to the public?
In striking the balance between the demands of inspection and the so-called freedom for schools, which the Government are promoting, have they not fallen too far on the side of the professionals and not sufficiently on the need to protect all pupils? The Minister may well say that the Government believe that they can trust schools to do the best for their pupils. We can for the most part, although not entirely, as experience tells us. However, that does not answer the point that it is wrong in principle for the provider of a service to be the sole arbiter of standards without any independent evaluation.
In addition to this fundamental issue of principle, there are a number of practical consequences to the exemption that I believe may have adverse effects on children and schools. I will mention three—other noble Lords will have other points—that are of particular concern to me. First, an outstanding rating at one inspection is not a guarantee of continuing excellence in standards of achievement. Outstanding schools decline. The 2010-11 Ofsted annual report reveals that 40% of the previously judged outstanding schools had declined at their subsequent inspection and three had plummeted to a rating of inadequate. For this reason, both the current chief inspector, Michael Wilshaw, and the former chief inspector, Christine Gilbert, have publicly expressed concerns about the proposal to exempt, as did the Education Select Committee.
Secondly, it is quite obvious that inspectors need regularly to see the full range of performance during their inspections in order satisfactorily to benchmark individual schools. If excellent schools are progressively excluded from the inspection regime there is a real danger that inspectors’ expectations will drift downwards over time as they lose touch with the very best practice.
Finally, inspections cover much more than the quality of teaching and learning. They have an important, and I would argue vital, role in telling us how well schools are addressing the wider well-being of pupils and preparing them for life challenges. Exam results alone cannot tell us how well, or even if, a school is teaching personal, social and health education, for example; how extensive the extra-curricular activities are; or, most importantly, how effectively a school is implementing good safeguarding policy and practice.
I know that if this exemption goes through—as I am sure it will—Ofsted has said that it will desktop assess outstanding schools regularly. However, that desktop analysis cannot possibly find out what is going on underneath exam results, and clarify and highlight whether there are any areas of concern, particularly in safeguarding and similar aspects of school life. For these reasons, and others that I suspect will be raised this evening, I believe that exempting any schools entirely from the inspection regime is a failure to children and parents. I beg to move the Motion.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on setting out her concerns. We know that she speaks from a very deep concern for the welfare of children and has a wish to see excellence in education, an aspiration which we all share. I know too that she has real concerns about the possibility of a school degenerating from outstanding to something less.
I want to take both aspects she mentioned, the practical and the principle, and to say a few words on why I believe that this set of regulations exempting some schools in this way is the right move. First, on the practical, I think the noble Baroness rather overemphasised the picture of schools that were never inspected. This is not what is going to happen. They will still be included in national surveys, with subjects and aspects of education, so her concerns that the people in Ofsted will no longer have the opportunity to see excellence is more than answered by the fact that they will still be able to see excellence across specific subject areas and specific aspects of education.
Secondly, the chief inspector’s risk assessment will be annual. It will be regular and look at more than simply exam results. It will look at any concerns raised about the outstanding schools which are exempt and will then, if necessary, trigger an inspection. The noble Baroness shares my concern that there is always a danger of a change in a school’s performance when a new head comes in—either for the better or for the worse. The regulations cover that eventuality. The chief inspector’s risk assessment will be speeded up after there is a change of leadership in the school. There again, any anxieties one might have have been addressed in the regulations.
There is a pathetic faith in the value of inspection. I say that as one who spent 18 years as an inspector. In the 20 years or so that Ofsted has been pursuing its inspections, this country’s young people have moved in their performance from being in the top five, six or seven by comparison with other countries to being down in 25th, 27th and 28th place in different subject areas. Although Ofsted, I am sure, has been pursuing its aims with the best of intentions, and no doubt the Government’s very tight regulations, particularly the previous Government’s regulations, for how Ofsted should go about its business, were all done with the best of intentions, it simply did not work in the way that it was hoped it would. The standards of performance in our schools have degenerated quite disastrously in comparison with the standards of performance of other countries over the period of Ofsted’s work. We need to start inquiring very deeply, rather than have a mantra of “inspection is good”, as to exactly what really does achieve quality in schools and education.
There is plenty of evidence that people perform at their best, whether professionally or in other areas, when they are trusted and feel valued. My very strong experience of talking to teachers and heads over the past decade or so is that they have lost that feeling of trust. They feel they are bound by an overweening inspection regime which has breathed down their necks. They are watching their backs and feel that the Government are permanently on their backs telling them things. That has been part of the Ofsted culture. I am happy to see that that is now being changed under the coalition Government. Ofsted is being changed very radically and made much more professional and much more limited in its inquisitorial role. That is a good thing. Nevertheless, for most teachers and schools, there is still a sense of being watched rather than being trusted. I believe passionately, as well as having seen the research evidence, that trust and value enable professional people and others to perform at their peak.
There must be accountability to balance autonomy. The more freedom that we give to exempt schools, the more it is essential that we decide what their autonomy should be. I would very briefly say that I think that there are three levels of autonomy that we should trust. The first is the professional code, to which teachers themselves rightly aspire. The conscience of the teacher in wanting to give his or her absolute best is the first level of accountability. That is what we must foster, help and encourage by giving them more freedom to do that, because it is the real guarantee of quality. It is only when teachers really feel that they are responsible for their own performance and that they are required to give the best to their pupils that the quality can really be guaranteed. The second level is that the head of the school and other senior people in the school are responsible for the quality of education in that school. We must foster that. Instead of their thinking that somebody is going to come from outside and judge them, they should take responsibility for themselves and be prepared to make those judgments and deal with any underperformance.
Finally, we have forgotten the role of governors here. The last port of call, rightly, is and ought to be the responsibility of the governors over the quality of what goes on in the school. If things start to go wrong, it is the governors who should blow the whistle and start taking action by changing the head or the other staff of the school. It is a matter of absolute principle that we should stop thinking that the Government are always the best judge of things and people. I love the phrase in the department’s Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations where it says:
“The intention is to give the best schools the power to manage their own performance and to be more accountable locally to their communities, rather than to central government”.
That is what I believe should happen.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I do not have a “pathetic faith” in inspections, as my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark, put it, as may become clear as I progress through my comments. The Explanatory Memorandum is very interesting and raises a number of issues. I am not against exempting outstanding schools and giving them more autonomy, as long as the risk assessment described in the memorandum is rigorous and properly applied. Paragraph 7.1, which my noble friend has just quoted, states that the policy intention,
“is to give the best schools the power to manage their own performance and to be more accountable locally to their communities, rather than to central government”.
Does this mean that the Government plan to restore the link between academies and their local authorities, allowing local authorities to monitor the performance of those schools and giving them the levers to ensure they are serving the community well? If not, that sentence is meaningless.
There is some detail about the risk assessment in the notes. It mentions that inspection will recommence if performance deteriorates significantly. How will that be judged? What is meant by “significantly”? Annexe A is even more interesting. It suggests that the changes will lead to higher quality inspections. Well, we would all like to see that, especially those of us who heard “File on 4” on Radio 4 on 1 July. We are told that Ofsted expects to save around £2.5 million per year through inspecting fewer schools. Can Ofsted plough back the money to improve the standard of inspection and inspectors, or does it have to be returned to the Treasury? In the latter case, how is Ofsted expected to improve the quality of inspections without any money?
Of course, Minsters always say that the quality of schools depends on the quality of teachers and school leadership. That is, of course, quite correct. In the same way, good inspections depend on the quality of the inspectors. There were some very worrying cases in the programme. Broughton Hall school in Liverpool is a case in point. It sends many pupils to Oxbridge and 97% of its pupils get five grade A to C GCSEs, even though it is located in a deprived area. The school was threatened by an Ofsted inspector with special measures, even though it had an award-winning outstanding head. There were 27 errors in the report. Ofsted refused to correct them all but gave the school a “satisfactory” rating. But we all know that, come September, “satisfactory” becomes “unsatisfactory”, so the stakes are getting higher. All the more reason therefore, why we are entitled to ask about the quality and fairness of the inspections.
In the programme Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, said:
“Schools have a right for the inspection to be rigorous, to be fair. If not they have a right to write in and their complaint will be looked at”.
But, “Where is the redress?”, said a head in the programme. He went on to say:
“If I get it wrong I will be held to account. Who holds Ofsted to account?”.
The problem is that Ofsted is not obliged to correct its mistakes. The adjudicator can look only at the way the original complaint was handled, not at the substance of the original judgment. Who does that? It relies on people going to judicial review, and we all know what that means.
All other regulators are held to account for the quality of their regulation by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. It was clearly the previous Government’s intention that Ofsted, too, should be held to account under this Act. The response to the consultation shows that very clearly. Does Ofsted fall under the LRRA 2006 or not—and, if not, why not? If it does, it should follow the Hampton principles, including transparency. After all, there is evidence that the number of complaints against Ofsted is rising. The department itself admits to one in 12 inspected schools. That is a lot. There is not enough information about the qualifications of those who inspect schools and about whether they are qualified teachers or have recent experience in school leadership or in the specialist subjects on which they are passing judgment. My noble friend Lady Perry, who is uniquely qualified to ask questions on these issues, asked a Written Question about how many were even qualified teachers, but did not get a straight answer. It is not even known how many HMIs have secondary leadership experience, let alone all the freelancers employed by agencies.
In the light of “raising the bar” for schools, will the Government start to collect this data and raise the bar for Ofsted? We all want to bring about improvement in our schools, but we need to have confidence in those who make judgments about school standards. Currently that is in question. It strikes me that the saving implied by the reduction in the number of inspections brought about by these regulations gives us a great opportunity. We need to start asking a lot more questions about the quality of Ofsted inspectors and inspections if they are to concentrate on core areas, as they are, and if the consequences for schools of the judgments that they make are to become more serious, which they are. That is only fair.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for allowing us to debate this important issue. I declare an interest; my wife is training to be an Ofsted inspector. I expect to learn much more about the process in the years ahead. I was surprised that the suggestion was made that the Committee stage of the Bill would resume at 8.30 pm. This debate is not time limited and I hope that we will not allow ourselves to be restricted in the Minister’s winding-up speech.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. Ofsted inspections are not everything. I also understand the criticisms that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made about specific Ofsted inspections. However, for parents and children Ofsted none the less provides a key safeguard if things go wrong in an individual school. That is why I am very much opposed to this statutory instrument; why, as noble Lords will recall, we had a vote on this at Report; and why many noble Lords remain concerned about the decision.
If ever one wanted to a reason to put forward to your Lordships’ House for needing this safeguard, it was the quite extraordinary decision of the Minister’s department this week to allow a free school to be opened by a group of creationists. The group behind the plans, known as the Exemplar Newark Business Academy, put forward a revised bid by basically the same people who proposed the Everyday Champions Academy last year, which was formally backed by the Everyday Champions Church. That bid was rejected explicitly because of concerns surrounding the teaching of creationism. In February 2011, while promoting the Everyday Champions Academy bid, the Everyday Champions Church leader, Gareth Morgan, said:
“Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school. It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory”.
That bid was rejected, but it has resurrected itself—if I may use the term in relation to creationism and that belief. This is now going to be a bid by the Exemplar Academy without the formal backing of the church, but the website for the new academy was initially part of the Everyday Champions Church website, and the plans were launched at the Everyday Champions Church, described as a resubmission of a previous bid.
I use this, first, as an occasion to strongly protest against the decision of the Minister’s department on this matter. I find it outrageous—outrageous—that a school that clearly is going to be tempted down the creationism route has been authorised by the noble Lord. What safeguards are there apart from potential interventions by Ofsted if we find that creationism is being taught? What happens if Ofsted, first time round, makes it an outstanding school? For many parents there will be no recourse whatever. That is why one objects so much to the Government’s decision in this regard.
I recognise that exempt schools may still be subject to inspections as part of the chief inspector’s surveys of general subjects and thematic reviews. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. However, what I find quite extraordinary is that this flies in the face of all the other regulatory regimes that are present in relation to public services, as my noble friend said. I thought that the Explanatory Memorandum was disingenuous—to put it kindly—when it stated in paragraph 7.3:
“Of the schools judged outstanding and inspected more than once since 2005, over 90% have remained either outstanding or good at their latest inspection”.
The reality at that time, as we discussed last year, was that, out of 1,155 schools that had been judged outstanding in that period, on subsequent inspection more than 30% had a reduced grading, including 58 that went from grade 1 to grade 3. What we see quite clearly is that outstanding schools do not remain outstanding. That is why this policy is so fatally flawed. I also refer the noble Lord to the college sector. I understand that in the inspections undertaken between January 2012 and May 2012, two outstanding colleges fell by one grade, two fell by two grades and one fell by three grades. Indeed, my understanding is that none maintained the outstanding grade.
I have seen no coherent, intellectual argument that would justify exemption for outstanding schools. There is no evidence that all outstanding schools remain outstanding. We hear about the risk assessment approach —the desktop approach—but I do not believe that there is confidence that that approach can get in to the school and actually see what is happening.
I will ask a number of questions of the Minister. First, we have heard that Ofsted will pay particular attention to a school or college where a new head teacher has been appointed. What about a considerable change in the leadership team? I also note that the consultation in March 2011—this order has not been consulted on but the original policy was consulted on—showed 60% of respondents supported a risk-based approach to determining which school should be inspected. Can the Minister tell me whether parents were brought into this consultation? If parents knew that this was going to happen, I doubt very much that they would have supported the policy.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I am surprised that this measure has come back as a statutory instrument, given our debate during the passage of the Bill. It is an ill advised piece of legislation. Like my noble friend who moved the Motion, I want to look at it on the strategic level and on points of detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made a significant contribution because there has been agreement over the 30 years since her colleagues’ 1988 education Act that inspection constitutes an essential part of the infrastructure of education policy and it was the first time that I had heard any senior politician from any of the parties be so critical of inspection per se as part of the framework. If I follow the logic of what the noble Baroness said, I am left wondering why we are letting Ofsted into any school in the country. If Ofsted is so weak and if we should now start to question its role in the education service, it cannot be just for outstanding schools; it must be in respect of the schools for which we worry far more, which are the satisfactory and less-than-satisfactory schools in our education system. There was no logic in that.
I, for one, still believe that inspection has been an essential part of basic education policy for the past 30 years. Successive Governments have abided by this. The narrative goes something like: “We want to give more freedom to schools, to encourage them to innovate and take on local character, to trust them more and more, and we are more confident in doing that if there is an accountability mechanism at its core. The better the inspection framework and the better our testing and the publication of that data, the more successive Governments have felt that they could free up so much more of the education system”. I still abide by that. It has been a shared concern across the parties and I am really worried if Members on the Government Back Benches—and perhaps the Front Bench, from whom we will hear—begin to challenge that shared understanding that we have had for a number of years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, talked about a fall in standards in our schools over the past few years. I fundamentally disagree with her. That is not what I have seen, and I do not believe it describes what is going on in our schools. However, I do remember—because I taught in it—the school system before we had any inspection at all. I would not want to go back to that. The standard of education, the quality of teaching and the number of children being let down was far greater before we had this accountability framework, including inspection, than it ever has been since. That is my first point. Strategically, the Government are pushing freedom for individual schools. Logically, they have every reason to care more about the inspection framework and the accountability framework, rather than less. They are throwing it away.
My second strategic point, or point of policy and substance, is that if you read the Explanatory Memorandum—which I think was disingenuous in many ways—it says that allowing outstanding schools not to be inspected by Ofsted is a reward for good performance. We have spent years trying to persuade schools that being inspected by Ofsted is not a punishment. It is something that is good for schools and good for teaching, which they should accept. If being exempt from inspection is a reward for good performance, what does it say about those schools that we are asking Ofsted to go into more frequently? It must be that it is a punishment for underperformance.
If struggling schools see Ofsted inspections as a punishment, rather than as something that can be an essential step in improving their performance, that absolutely takes away all the progress that has been made over the past 20 years in trying to get a new generation of teachers to view Ofsted in a completely different light.
The second point the Explanatory Memorandum makes is about freeing up staff time. Ofsted inspection should not be taking up lots of classroom time. That is why we have moved to shorter notice for inspection and to inspectors being able to come in with two or three days’ notice. It is an admission by government that having Ofsted in your school wastes the time of teachers. Frankly, if we want to free up time, it ought to be for teachers who are teaching in schools that still have a long way to go, rather than in those that are outstanding.
The last point, of course, is saving money. If this is a money-saving measure, say so. Let it be. Let us talk about that, but let us not pretend that it is a decent educational measure.
In terms of local accountability, one of the things about Ofsted is that it gives a national framework for inspection, and it does not actually rely on local accountability. I want a system where the schools in the poorest areas are compared with the schools in the richest areas; the south with the north; the east with the west; the poor with the rich; the ethnic minorities with the affluent white. Unless we have a national inspection framework, we will never get that.
On details of policy, most of these points have been made, but I will make one more. The panoply of bureaucracy that is being built up as part of the risk assessment will take away any extra time or money that might have come Ofsted’s way. As the years go by, there will hopefully be more schools that receive outstanding Ofsted reports, go into that category and will have to be risk-assessed every year. We are assured that there is no trigger or tick box, so careful judgments about all these schools will have to be taken into account.
I will finish with two or three questions, some of which build on those which have already been asked. First, I want to pursue one of the questions outlined by my noble friend Lord Hunt. He asked whether schools will be reinspected. If in future Ofsted criteria change, will schools be inspected again or will they be allowed to be free for life from inspection against a set of criteria that is no longer being used?
Secondly, why are special schools not in this group? If we are going to exempt outstanding schools, then why are we not going to exempt special schools?
Thirdly, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about, I think, 60% of people who were in favour of a risk-based approach to inspection. I am in favour of a risk-based approach to inspection, but I am not in favour of this. Will the Minister let us know what the consultation report said about the number of people who were in favour of this particular recommendation?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this very important subject. I share many of her concerns, particularly the concerns raised by several noble Lords about the rapid changes in school quality and how we can be sure we get on top of that in good time and do not allow some of these children’s education, and their time in school, to be wasted.
In one particular aspect of our education, which is faith schools—we have heard about creationism—there has been a lot of concern in debates on education Bills in this House about how they work in practice. Many faith schools deliver great education to children, but they are a special complexity for this country, and there is therefore concern about how this regulation may be implemented in that regard.
I have sympathy with the Government’s position. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, said. I was reminded of the experience in Finland, where there is no school inspection system. Finland's Minister of Education says:
“Teachers in Finland can choose their own teaching methods and materials. They are experts of their own work, and they test their own pupils. I think this is also one of the reasons why teaching is such an attractive profession in Finland because teachers are working like academic experts with their own pupils in schools”.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Hughes of Stretford has put down this Motion of Regret. This is proving to be an important debate, quite rightly raising all manner of concerns. I find the notion of schools being exempt from inspection quite extraordinary and somewhat sinister. If this is about money, can we afford to downgrade excellence in education? Inspection is about checking on measures to improve quality in all aspects of school life.
I would like to pick up on some of the things said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Inspection is not, of course, the only measure. I recognise that many schools have in place excellent self-assessment procedures. However, that is not the same as inspection. Who inspects the self-assessment procedures? I wonder whether the chief inspector’s risk assessment can kick in quickly enough or be rigorous enough. Regular inspection is something that many schools learn from; it makes them vigilant. My principal concern about exempting schools from inspection is that, as I know, the Minister must know and at least three other Lords have mentioned, schools can slip very quickly from being excellent, even good, to being not so good and not so excellent. I have known the loss of an inspiring head of department or an inspiring head teacher plummet a school into difficulties in less than a year. Deterioration of that kind can go unnoticed for a while but would not if inspection were in place.
School improvement partners were disbanded by this Government and not replaced. As a school governor, I found in south London that visits by the school improvement partner were a great help in examining pupil achievement and well-being, structural issues and staff training needs. That has gone. Where will the checks be? It is ironic that private schools are inspected regularly and thoroughly. Why will some state schools be exempt? This lack of inspection could well reinforce inequality. It is not fair on pupils and parents in state schools to remove controls on standards while they are maintained rigorously in the private sector.
I have seen good school inspection teams in operation. This is where I want to pick up on what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. A good inspection team does not just pick up on academic achievement, although that is important. A good inspection team will recognise that some children have difficulty learning because of factors in their lives that inhibit learning, such as a home background that does not foster it. Schools must make good that deficit before children can take advantage of what the school offers. If they do not, and if they rely on developing self-esteem and overcoming disadvantage solely through literacy and numeracy, this has a profoundly negative effect on equality of opportunity. A Government who express a wish to overcome disadvantage should be ashamed to risk denying opportunities through negligence and through a lack of consideration for how schools are delivering consistently and appropriately for all pupils, including delivering on dimensions which are non-academic but which support learning.
I have just looked at the Ofsted subsidiary guidance issued to inspectors in January 2012. That guidance includes a spiritual dimension—the pupil’s perspective on life, their enjoyment of learning and so forth. It includes a moral dimension—the ability to recognise the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of actions. It includes a social dimension—co-operation and resolving conflict. It also includes a cultural dimension—responsiveness to artistic, musical, sporting, mathematical and cultural opportunities and exploring diversity.
Education is not education if these dimensions of learning are not considered, and they ought to be inspected. They are the less definable aspects of education. Inspection teams should look for a positive school ethos that fosters respect for others and respect for self. This ethos, embodied in and reliant on these less definable aspects and the dimensions that I have listed, can disappear even more quickly than academic achievement. It is terribly important to have inspectors go in, look around them and focus on the ethos of the school and the elements of learning that are essential to underpin all achievement.
I remember a discussion with the inspector for personal, social and health education. She had, in her reports, examples of good practice in different schools. That is another example of what inspection can do—to gather and share good work on all aspects of education. What a waste if that potential is lost.
I do not understand the logic of the Government’s thinking on these regulations. Good practice does not fear inspection. Inspection promotes vigilance and excellence. Excellence supports children in academic subjects and in personal and social well-being. I urge the Government to think again on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Many noble Lords have spoken with a great deal of passion. We have talked again about some of the issues that we discussed previously in Committee and on Report and we have talked about the whole question of inspection itself. A number of themes have been covered. I will concentrate my remarks on the Motion before us moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford. I will attempt to pick up on the points raised relating to that. If I fail, I will follow up any particular questions afterwards.
I think that it is fair to say that, although there is clearly disagreement between us as to the definition of “proportionate”, there is agreement in principle that having a more proportionate approach to inspection in itself is not a bad idea to pursue. But, as I say, there is a difference between what we mean by “proportionate”. I know that noble Lords opposite and others argue that “proportionate” means that all schools should be inspected automatically at least once every five years. I contend that “proportionate” means that so long as there are proper safeguards—obviously I will come back to that—it is possible that some schools can be exempt from routine inspections.
As I listened to the contributions this evening, a number of common themes emerged. The first was that schools can fail very quickly—how can we be sure that we will spot that? That was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and most recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. How do you pick up failure? How will we share good practice? How will inspectors and others within the school system know what “outstanding” means and how will they learn from one another? The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, asked to what extent the Government’s proposals were being driven by financial considerations. How will we know about safeguarding concerns? Is it right in principle that all schools should be inspected? I will come back and try to answer all those concerns, but I want briefly to put the Government’s overall changes in context, because that helps to explain why we are doing what we are doing.
Before Ofsted was established 20 years ago, back in 1992, we had not had regular inspection of all schools. There was no formal assessment of primary schools and there was no published performance information. The introduction of routine inspection was the start of a process of making parents and the public more aware of how schools were performing. Since then, as noble Lords are well aware, there have been a number of developments under both Governments which have led to much more information being available. Key stage 2 testing, for example, was introduced in 1994, performance tables were introduced for secondary schools in 1994 and primary school performance tables followed in 1996. As a result, today there is a huge amount of information available on how schools are performing. I very much agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about having that information that we can share.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the chief inspector is laying much greater emphasis on the quality of teaching and learning in the new judgment on schools. I would imagine that that would mean that a number of schools graded outstanding under the old regime would not be outstanding under the new one. I seek reassurance on this. I understand the argument for schools that are graded outstanding by the new chief inspector under the new criteria that he has brought in, but what I do not understand is why schools that were graded outstanding under the previous criteria will continue to be treated as outstanding.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The basic response to the question comes in two parts. First, to reclassify retrospectively schools that were once classified in a particular way is difficult. The judgment that is made at the time should be based on the framework within which they are operating. Secondly, as far as how these schools will be picked up is concerned, we do not intend that they should be re-inspected automatically, because they were found outstanding under the existing framework. But the point about outstanding teaching would be precisely the kind of issue that, in terms of prioritising schools for risk assessment, Ofsted would put at the top of its list with the focus that it now gives to outstanding teaching.
As I said on Report, Ofsted will carry out a targeted review during the academic year 2012-13 to look specifically at where the safeguarding arrangements remain strong in a sample of outstanding primary and secondary schools. The findings from that review will be published and used to inform the effectiveness of the new arrangements. We know much more about schools. We need to use inspection wisely and effectively. We know, including from recent evidence from the Institute of Education, that inspection has most impact in weaker schools. That is why we are keen to target inspection there.
There is no evidence that Ofsted is going soft on schools. Most of the time the department gets comments in the opposite direction. If anything the chief inspector has signalled a tougher approach, but it is right to recognise those schools that have demonstrated the strongest performance. We want to encourage the best school leaders to play a full and active part in wider system improvement, working in partnership with other schools, in federations and chains, as well as more formally, such as becoming national leaders in education. As my noble friend Lady Perry argued, we need to signal our trust in these leaders. One way of doing this is by recognising their hard work and not requiring them to be routinely inspected and asking them to spend more time working with other schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, asked me about special schools. As far as vulnerable children are concerned the reason why the exemption regulations do not apply to special schools—pupil referral units and nurseries—is because we recognise that there is a concern about vulnerable children. We want the reassurance of knowing before one were to exempt them that we could satisfy ourselves that that was a wise course of action. The current intention is that they will undergo routine inspection, but we will keep that under review.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
Why are the data less reliable with those schools than they are with non-special schools? That has been the thrust of the Minister’s argument: that data are strong enough for us to be able to take this course of action. The data are the same for the special schools, so what is the problem?
Lord Hill of Oareford
There are some harder judgments to make about some of the children who might typically be in special schools or pupil referrals. That is a fair point. Given the particular sensitivity about those schools we would prefer to proceed cautiously in that respect.
At bottom, this is an argument about trust, not just about trust in schools—and I am not seeking to make a political point—but about whether we feel that we can trust Ofsted to do its job. There is a difference of opinion between us over the meaning of “proportionate”. What the Government have been doing has been made possible by the great increase in information that we have encouraged, as well as by the further strengthening of risk assessment that has been put in place, partly as a result of concerns expressed by Members of this House. It is no more than a logical expansion of developments in recent years. I commend the steps that we have taken to the House.
Baroness Walmsley
Since my noble friend appears to be drawing his remarks to a close, will he write to me about the questions that I asked him?
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Lord concludes, I thank him for his careful response. I may have missed his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with regard to faith schools, but will the risk assessments also consider the impact of faith schools on the teaching of science, for example, and the need to monitor that area?
Lord Hill of Oareford
First, inspections into faith schools concerning the arrangements that those schools make around their religious education will continue in any case, even for exempt schools. If there are concerns of the kind raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about individual schools, whether by parents, local authorities or others, those would be referred to Ofsted and Ofsted would need to take a view as to whether it needed to act.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister and my noble friends and noble Baronesses opposite for their very thoughtful and detailed contributions to what has been a very important debate. It has boiled down to three crucial questions. I will be brief because I am mindful of colleagues who want to carry on with the main business. I will not delay the House but I would like to bring these three items to our attention.
First, is external inspection necessary, even if it is not of itself now sufficient, to assure quality of education for pupils and to reassure the public? Notwithstanding the contribution of the Minister and the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I do not think we have had an answer to that tonight, even though the Minister said he would address the Motion—and the first part of the Motion is about the undermining of that principle of regular inspection of public services. In every other service, the answer to that question is yes. In some critical services, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Hunt, inspection is not becoming lighter touch; it is becoming tighter. We have not heard the argument for schools uniquely to be exempt from inspection. We have not heard the Government’s answer to that question tonight.
Secondly, do we have the evidence that, contrary to other public services, outstanding schools exceptionally remain outstanding once they have been judged so to be? The answer is no, as we have heard. All the evidence says that many outstanding schools decline in standards; some decline dramatically and quickly, as my noble friend Lady Massey pointed out. If they can fall dramatically in relation to educational standards, they can certainly fall dramatically as well in relation to safeguarding and those other issues particularly germane to vulnerable children that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned about, and I share his concern.
Thirdly, the Government’s argument comes down to the fact that the safety net, the annual desktop risk assessment, is there as a catch-all. As my noble friend Lady Morris pointed out, not only is this becoming an edifice in itself, but in my view it can never be a substitute for directly observing what is going on and talking to parents and teachers. I am afraid what came to mind when I was listening to the arguments in favour of this as an effective safety net was the Baby P case in Haringey, when I was a Minister, when we learned that Ofsted had very recently completed a desktop assessment of social care in Haringey, which obviously had failed to uncover the very serious problems in policy and practice. It seems to be common sense that a desktop analysis of data is never actually going to reveal what is going on.
I hope that the Minister has at least appreciated the genuine strength of feeling and concern on this side of the House—and I suspect elsewhere. I am not going to press this matter to a vote at this late hour but I hope that the Government will reflect and monitor what happens as a result of this measure. If this measure has some of the negative consequences that we fear in even one school, many children will have their educational years blighted unnecessarily and avoidably, and I think we all agree that that would be a tragedy. I withdraw the Motion.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
“Independent review of closed material procedure
The Secretary of State shall ensure that an independent review is conducted into the impact of the provisions under Part 2, to conclude three years after the coming into force of this Act, and shall publish a report on the review to both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment and the others in this group stem from the report of the Constitution Committee and representations from organisations such as Justice. The Constitution Committee records that my right honourable friend Sadiq Khan, the shadow Justice Minister, asked a question in the House of Commons about the number of cases in which a CMP had been adopted under the existing provisions, which relate to control orders and the like. The reply of the Minister, Mr Djanogly, was that there was no information, it had not been collated and it would be too expensive to provide such information. The Constitution Committee rightly points out that these are matters of considerable interest to the public and, indeed, to Parliament and such a record should be made available. It invites the House,
“to consider whether the Government should be required to maintain consolidated records”.
Amendment 67B looks to provide such information, as does Amendment 67A, again following the recommendation of the Constitution Committee and representations, in this case from Justice, that the Government should report on the impact of the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has a similar amendment, Amendment 88.
Amendment 67A talks of a three-year period because it seems sensible, given the suggestion that there are likely to be very few cases, to allow sufficient time to elapse to gauge whether that is right or not. It would perhaps be wrong to rely on a single year’s experience as the basis for a review. Three years is long enough, in my judgment. Justice suggests a five-year period, which seems to me to be too long, given the scale of the changes. I hope that the Government will accept that these amendments, which are of course tabled on the basis that we end up with a CMP provision, will facilitate a greater understanding of how the system works and allow consideration of modifications should any of the difficulties which some of us have canvassed today in Committee and on previous occasions be warranted. I hope that the Government will look benignly on these amendments: they are not in any way destructive and should allow a proper consideration of how matters progress should the legislation pass in something like its present form. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 88, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said, is in my name. I concur with much of his reasoning and concerns about the recording and reporting of these matters. The amendments would enable Parliament to monitor the use of these unusual court proceedings. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say whether the response given in the other place to the question from Mr Sadiq Khan still stands, as the Government have very helpfully agreed to compile a central database of closed material procedures for the use of special advocates. If the Government are able to compile that database for special advocates, could they not also do so for Parliament?
If the closed material procedures are granted by Parliament, it would be on the basis of there being a very small number of cases. This amendment would enable Parliament to monitor whether that is indeed the case. Unfortunately, things that are intended to be rare have a tendency to creep, as apparently Lord Williams of Mostyn assured your Lordships’ House in 1997 in relation to the introduction of SIAC. The closed material procedures are now used in a large number of statutory situations—I think about 14 different jurisdictions. I expect there will need to be some agreement as to how frequently a report is laid but it is important with such a closed system that as much information as possible comes into the public domain, particularly information that can be assessed by Parliament. Although not the subject of this amendment, the same argument applies to the use of closed material procedures generally, so that Parliament would know how often they are applied for, granted, appealed and, in particular, successfully appealed, as well as which government departments are making use of the procedures and under which legislative regime they are being used. I also believe that there could be useful comparative statistics on how often appeals are brought in jurisdictions where appeal is allowed on a matter of law alone compared to on a matter of fact, as in the civil proceedings considered under this Bill.
Amendment 88 adds the requirement for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to bring a report to Parliament, which I understand would be similar to the role of the independent reviewer in relation to control orders and now TPIMs. It could also perhaps provide a means for the independent reviewer to receive the continuing views of the special advocates, which have been such a concern to many people including the Lord Chancellor. Unless someone independent reads all these closed judgments in an area, I do not know how we will know if there are inconsistent decisions and perhaps cases that have been decided without knowledge of a previous precedent due to the fact that these are secret judgments. Some of that risk will of course now be averted by the new central database that I have mentioned, which will be available to special advocates. However, it will not be completely averted, in my view, due to the nature of the system and not in a way that Parliament can be assured of the integrity of the body of these decisions. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation might even need a method of passing cases that he or she is concerned about to be reviewed by the court for the reasons I have outlined.
I believe it is very much in the Government’s interests to have as much information in the public domain and as much scrutiny as possible of a closed system. I also hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that there will be good news on Report on the principle behind this amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 88 and entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. The noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland said earlier this evening that CMPs are “second-best justice”. If we are to have CMPs as a necessary but regrettable diminution in the quality of justice, and if the quality of justice is to be strained in this way, with all the damage that is done to fair and open justice, it is essential that the legislation contains adequate provisions for reporting and review so that this new procedure can be carefully monitored.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I support these amendments for all the reasons we have discussed with previous amendments but will just make this observation. I do not want to be too manic depressive about the implications of this Bill but it seems that all this can become very routine—we have a report and an annual consideration, but we do things this different way. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House know exactly what I am talking about and can imagine, late in the evening with very few noble Lords present, a ritual whereby the report comes before us and is considered. There will be a tremendous responsibility in the future. We all have a duty to keep this sense of responsibility alive and, as I put it earlier, to say this is an exceptional and—I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—regrettable digression. It is exceptional and it must be justified. It must not become just an alternative on which we report, take note and so on. It is something that ideally should not be there. Of course, I take second place to nobody in my anxieties about the nature and gravity of the threats which confront us. Of course I take that very seriously. That is why it is all the more important that we do not cave in to the extremists and that we do not in the end give them a victory in the sense that we have diminished justice. There will be an ongoing task for us all to be vigilant on this matter.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, my noble friend Lady Berridge and other noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. It raises some important issues about how an Act of Parliament, especially one such as this, is scrutinised after Royal Assent. I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place for reviewing the operation of CMPs and other aspects of the Bill. I also understand, support and indeed share the objective of ensuring accountability of Government to Parliament, particularly in an area where we are moving towards new measures which are different and mark a significant step away from what has been routine until this point.
Amendment 67A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would require an independent review of the impact of the provisions under Part 2 three years after Royal Assent. It may be helpful to remind noble Lords that any Act has always been liable to some form of post-legislative review, whether by a parliamentary committee or internally within Government. Since March 2008, an additional and more systematic process has been in place. Normally, three to five years after Royal Assent, the responsible department must submit a memorandum to the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee. The memorandum will include a preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked out in practice, relative to objectives and benchmarks identified during the passage of the Bill. The Select Committee, or another committee, will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry into the Act. The process applies to all Acts receiving Royal Assent in or after 2005. This process already covers a requirement for a review after several years. Therefore, I think that the objective outlined in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is already covered.
Amendment 67B and the first part of Amendment 88 seek respectively to introduce annual and quarterly reports on the operation of this part of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made an important point. While it is important to have a process for calling the Government to account and for reviewing the operation of the Act and the CMP process, we need to be careful of the law of diminishing returns by introducing a process that is so systematic that over time it is no longer as impactful as it might otherwise be. What is important is that the Government collect the relevant data so that if a Select Committee or any parliamentarian wants to ask a question, or if there is a debate or a parliamentarian wishes to scrutinise the operation of CMPs, we are in a position to do so. My noble friend Lady Berridge referred to that point. During the process between now and Report, as we consider the implementation phase of the Bill, we will carefully consider how best to do that. I will certainly take on board the points made in the debate.
The second part of Amendment 88 seeks to add the review of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill to the remit of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I am concerned about how practical such a proposal may be to achieve its aims, given that the remit of the independent reviewer has already been extended on several occasions. His statutory responsibilities relate to the Terrorism Act 2000, Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, the TPIM Act 2011 and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010. Furthermore, the Protection of Freedoms Act, which came into force this year, requires that the independent reviewer or someone on his behalf undertakes a review of any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond the current statutory limit and if the Government intend to commence functions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 relating to the independent reviewer inspecting places of terrorist detention.
The TPIM Act is unique in that its measures are designed to restrict the behaviour and activities of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism who, the Government argue, cannot be prosecuted or deported. This is why Parliament legislated for close post-legislative scrutiny. David Anderson QC indicated, when giving evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, that his role has already increased and that there is a limit to how much one person can do. It is important that we avoid diluting the effectiveness of the role by overburdening it. Notwithstanding this, I recognise the valuable contribution that David Anderson QC has made to the debate about the need for CMPs. His reviewer functions for asset-freezing and TPIMs already include the use of CMPs. There is nothing to prevent Mr Anderson or any future post-holder being asked to undertake ad hoc reports into issues of wider national security relevance or being invited by Parliament to give his opinions. It is important that any such ad hoc report should not seek to provide oversight or review of the judiciary’s decisions on individual cases. That would not be appropriate.
My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about the database that is being made available to the special advocates. I can inform her that the closed database is to ensure that special advocates have access to judgments for legal precedent value. However, the database will contain sensitive information and will not be appropriate for disclosure generally to Parliament.
All that said, I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and other noble Lords that the measures currently in place are sufficient to ensure that the Act, if the Bill achieves Royal Assent, is properly scrutinised and that the department takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that we are in a position to be held accountable in the way that Parliament has every right to expect. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, if I am right, this is the first occasion on which the noble Baroness has responded to a justice debate. I welcome her to her new responsibilities. I wonder whether she is by any chance related to Lord Stowell, an eminent 18th century judge from Newcastle. He was the brother of the Tory Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon—the most reactionary Lord Chancellor that the country has ever had. Perhaps she would enlighten me on her genealogy or, if she is not sure, look into it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will not detain the House. He is no relation but I know of his existence, which is why my title is Baroness Stowell of Beeston.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Perhaps I may point out that he had a connection with the college to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I also have a connection.
Lord Beecham
As does the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I had the misfortune to sit beneath the portraits of both those distinguished judges at my school and my college. I could not escape them but I would not wish to escape the noble Baroness.
Despite these warm words, I am somewhat disappointed by the noble Baroness’s reply on the amendments. Amendment 67A seeks, in effect, to replicate the independent review process of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation without adopting that individual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, suggested. Having said that, it would not be beyond the wit of government to appoint a second independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and allied matters if that were thought to be required. It is the independence of the review that is essential. Furthermore, the post-legislative review process is normally designed to take place after three to five years. Five years is too long. This is a rather different piece of legislation from most of that which would be reviewed. We are dealing with some fundamental rights and a fundamental change in the justice system. It deserves special consideration. I hope the Government will think again about that. The same really applies to Amendment 67B. It is important that there should be in the public domain regular checks on precisely what use is being made of these procedures. Concerns have been expressed in Committee today that, like Topsy, the use of these things may simply grow. The legislature needs to keep an eye on developments here. The assumption is that there will not be many. That is an assumption which needs to be tested regularly. A compilation of statistics on an annual basis should help that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
Does the noble Lord agree that the phrase “mission creep” could be made for this sort of thing? We just find it spreading out. Mission creep would be a most dangerous aspect of this legislation.
Lord Beecham
I concur with that view, hence the need for regular reporting, not just of the statistics. The next amendment I will move will deal with other aspects. There does not appear to be available in general an indication of how much use is being made of the process under the present regime. It will be even more important when we are looking at the new developments that the Bill proposes. I am somewhat disappointed with the reply. It may well be that we will have to return to these issues on Report. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“Open statements for closed judgments
Closed judgments must be accompanied by an open statement from the court, which shall include—
(a) the reasons for the closed material procedure;(b) any factors which would be particularly relevant in determining whether all or part of the closed judgment could be made open at a later date;(c) the duration of open hearings and closed hearings;(d) the number of witnesses heard in closed proceedings, and the nature of those witnesses;(e) the length of a closed judgment;(f) whether national security was an issue in the proceedings; and(g) the date at which the closed status of the judgment should be reviewed, which must be no later than five years from the date of the judgment.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment was suggested effectively by Dr McNamara of the University of Reading, who is conducting a research project around—as he puts it—how different arms of the state control and manage information about terrorism and security. It is a project that has involved a great many government departments and individuals from government to police forces and the like. He suggested that it would be sensible, again given the important nature of the proposals in the Bill, to look at how the system is working in somewhat more detail than simply the numbers of cases we referred to in previous amendments. The thrust of this amendment is to require a judgment when it is made to give the reasons for the closed material procedure, such as national security, as well as the other factors that are listed in the amendment—I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them all.
The essence is to have a clear view of what is happening in individual cases and ultimately to make possible the availability of the status of the judgment. Paragraph (g) of the proposed new clause would give a date at which the status of the judgment should be reviewed—in other words it would create the possibility of opening up the material at some point. That would not be an absolute requirement. It would still be a matter for determination as to whether the material should be disclosed, but a time period would at least set the clock running for that possibility. In some cases it would not eventuate but in others it might be appropriate for the material to be disclosed. This would reinforce the acceptability if CMPs come into play because the public would have some assurance that ultimately consideration would be given to disclosing material. That may allay some of the fears that surround the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, this amendment is perfectly understandable and very prescriptive. It might be to the benefit of the House if I explained that I asked the Government in a Question for Written Answer whether they would introduce measures to ensure that judgments made by courts and tribunals under the closed material procedures were made public when the reasons for maintaining their secrecy no longer obtained. This, of course, relates to a later amendment.
My noble friend Lord McNally gave a Written Answer on 10 July, which may make any comment unnecessary. He said:
“Closed judgments contain highly sensitive material. For this reason they are not suitable for publication by law reporting organisations which are not security cleared. Closed judgments are usually handed down in tandem with an open judgment, and most judges”—
I emphasise “most”—
“state in their open judgment that a closed judgment has also been handed down ... Judges will put as much of their reasoning into open as possible, including statements of legal principle that are most likely to have cross-case relevance. It is open to special advocates and counsel for the Government to make submissions about moving material from the closed judgment to the open judgment. If the court is persuaded that it would not harm the public interest to do so, then material will be moved to the open judgment”.—[Official Report, 10/7/12; col. WA243.]
It then refers to the code of practice under the Freedom of Information Act. I mention that Answer because it shows that an unsatisfactory situation will obtain with regard to these judgments. Whether this or a later amendment or some other approach is needed, I have no doubt that standards are needed so that we get common—in fact universal—practice as to what we can do to make sure that judgments whose secrecy has been lost over time or because of particular circumstances may be made public in accordance with the principle of open justice.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, and not just because in principle it is right that judgments should be closed for as limited a time as necessary. There is also a very real practical consideration that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in his Answer that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, quoted, there have been examples of closed judgments that contained statements of principle that were not in open judgments or that contained statements relevant to other cases or potential cases. The difficulty is that those practising in this area who represent individual litigants do not have access to this body of jurisprudence. If we are to create this closed material procedure, we have to recognise that we are creating a body of case law that is not generally available. That is a very real problem for the rule of law. One way in which to address the problem is to minimise as far as we reasonably can the length of time for which a closed judgment is not generally available. For that reason, in addition to the reasons already given, I support the amendment.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and am aware that part of this issue is covered by a later amendment in a separate group. I want to raise the very practical point that leads on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. From hearing evidence in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a very basic question arose: where, physically, are these judgments?
Normally, you can go into a law library and they are all there. Special advocates and other people just seem to be unaware of where, physically, this body of case law is stored. We know from the answer to Mr Sadiq Khan that it seems not to be collated centrally. It is a very important question. It sounds incredibly basic, but we need to know where, physically, these judgments are stored.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, it is obvious that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is important and goes to a number of aspects of the use of closed judgments. I think it is agreed that we are constantly trying to balance fairness and national security. It is self-evident that closed judgments contain material that should not be disclosed in the interests of national security. Of course, this is the only basis on which a judgment can be classified as closed. As is the practice in existing statutory regimes for CMPs, such as TPIMs and SIAC cases, judges will hand down an open judgment, in tandem with a closed judgment, that contains the parts of the judgment that can be disclosed without causing damage to national security.
In February 2010, special advocates raised concerns about accessing a searchable database of closed judgments. I hope this goes some way in answering the point raised by my noble friend Lady Berridge. The Government agree that it is important to ensure that those who are entitled to access closed judgments are able to do so efficiently and effectively. We have been consulting the Special Advocates Support Office on the creation, storage and dissemination of the head notes and are in the process of finalising arrangements. We anticipate that the database will be populated with all historic closed judgments by the end of the summer. I know that does not go the whole way, as some noble Lords have indicated, but I hope that I have indicated that we have addressed the concern that was raised and are making significant progress towards meeting it.
The next part of my remarks will probably reflect what was said by my noble friend Lord McNally in his response to my noble friend Lord Lester. It is the case that judges will put as much of their reasoning into the open as possible, including the statements of legal principle that are most likely to have cross-case relevance. It is the role of special advocates to make submissions about what material can properly go into the open judgment. If the court is persuaded that it would not harm national security, material will be included in an open judgment rather than a closed judgment.
However, it is not always possible to provide an open statement containing the information as it is described in this amendment. For example, the amendment suggests that it should reveal the length of the closed hearing, the number of witnesses and the nature of those witnesses, which could be damaging to national security. If in the judgment the summary said that the closed session lasted five days while members of the Security Service gave evidence, this would provide to the claimant the knowledge that the intelligence services held a lot of information on them when they may not have been aware of that fact. As already outlined, it will be up to special advocates and counsel for the Government to make submissions about whether material can be included in an open judgment or should remain closed, with the final decision being for the court, which will decide that material should be classified as closed only if its disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security.
The amendment also requires the judge to declare whether national security was an issue in the proceedings. I believe that this is unnecessary. As we have made clear on a number of occasions in Committee, the Bill makes it clear that the only reason a court can go in to a closed session is that the disclosure of some material relevant to the case would damage national security.
The Lord Chancellor’s code of practice on the management of records, issued under Section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, provides guidance on the management of records held by bodies subject to the Public Records Act 1958. Authorities are required to identify records worthy of permanent preservation and transfer them to the National Archives, a place of deposit for public records or the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, as appropriate. Authorities all need to consider whether parts of records might be released if the sensitive information were redacted— in other words, rendered invisible or blanked out. Information that has been redacted should be stored securely and should be returned to the parent record when the exemption has ceased to apply.
I heard what was said by my noble friends and by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Pannick, about when the national security considerations have in some respects flown off. I want to revisit this matter and discuss it with officials because I recognise the point that has been made. I am not going to pretend that there may be an easy answer to it, but if there is no longer a national security consideration, I see the force of what has been said. However, I have tried to describe the current arrangements for the storage and permanent preservation of records.
However, as things stand, it is up to the courts to decide the detail to include in their judgments. The Bill allows the judges to make these judgments with as much information available to them as possible, while ensuring that the interests of national security are not damaged. I do not believe that Parliament needs to go further and dictate to judges specific information that they are require to release, and I therefore do not believe that the many detailed parts of the amendment are necessary. I hope that in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his open-minded response, but there are two problems. One is the problem of legal certainty, which is how the public, lawyers and people who are not special advocates can know exactly what the law is. That problem is obviously a human rights convention problem as well as a common law problem. The second problem is about whose responsibility it would be to make sure, when secrecy has been lost and national security considerations are no longer there, that something is done to put a matter into the public domain. I am still puzzled about who would be responsible. The final point is: how can one get guidance to the courts to ensure a common approach? Is it contemplated that rules will be made through amendments to Clause 7 or that guidance will be given? Will the judges be consulted and so on? These are practical problems that are important to address. As I understand from the response of my noble and learned friend, he is open to thought and discussion about those kinds of practical matters.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, there were three points. First, I understand my noble friend’s point about the availability of judgments that are closed to people who are not special advocates. That is a difficult problem that I cannot readily see a solution to, given that the very reason why they are closed judgments is because of the sensitive nature of the information in them the disclosure of which could be damaging to national security.
The second point is very much one of detail. Who would determine whether there was, in fact, no longer a national security consideration? Where would the responsibility lie? That is the very issue that I want to consider, because how that would be addressed does not readily present itself to me. I sought to indicate that there is an issue here. I am not pretending for a moment that there is an easy answer, but the issue is important to consider.
On the third point that my noble friend makes about consistency, the difficulty—perhaps it is a reality rather than a difficulty—is that every case will be dealt with on its own individual circumstances. What goes into an open judgment or a closed judgment may well be the result of representations, debate and argument before the judge by special advocates. In those circumstances, it is difficult to ensure that there is rigid consistency because that might inhibit more openness in circumstances where a special advocate makes a compelling case that particular material ought to be included in an open, rather than a closed, judgment. It may be the counsel of perfection, or of the impossible, to think that there would be consistency when we are dealing with circumstances that can differ considerably from case to case. I think it must be left to the argument presented by counsel on both sides—special advocates and counsel for the Government—to determine what a judge puts into open judgment and what is put into closed judgment.
I hope that with those words, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to give consideration to that particular aspect. There are two issues here. One is public confidence in the system, for which some information about the process—I am not talking about detailed information about the closed material itself—needs to be in the public domain. The second issue is that this should be done in a systematic way, perhaps by the equivalent of the 30-year rule for Cabinet papers and the like.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we should set out to prescribe a given period at this point, but at some point the option of disclosing material ought to be built into the system. This should not necessarily be with a particular time frame in mind, but be a process that is available to the Government of the day to determine, perhaps in conjunction with the courts, what information might be released and when. That is something that we might look at further on Report, in addition to the point that the Minister has agreed to take back. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“Disclosure judge
(1) The jurisdiction of the court in section 6 proceedings shall be exercised by a judge designated by the Lord Chief Justice for such purposes.
(2) A judge so designated shall be referred to as “the disclosure judge”.
(3) The disclosure judge shall not be the trial judge of the relevant civil proceedings.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I raised in my Second Reading speech the question of a separate judge for the determination of disclosure issues, in particular PII applications and Section 6 proceedings: that is, a judge who is separate and distinct from the trial judge. The reason I believe this to be a necessary safeguard in civil proceedings is because the trial judge in civil proceedings is the judge of fact. That is quite distinct from criminal proceedings in the Crown Court, where it is the jury that makes the decision on what has happened.
It was the procedure instituted in the Diplock criminal courts in Northern Ireland, where the judge, unusually, sat alone without a jury. He decided the facts and returned the verdict. The purpose of this practice was to build public confidence in the criminal trial process in the absence of a jury. The importance of public confidence in the system has been emphasised today, most particularly by my noble friend Lady Williams, but also by others who have referred to the need to keep public confidence in the judicial system.
This proposal has been the subject of discussion with the Minister, and with the Secretary of State, for which I am grateful, and I have been provided with a note which sets out the Ministry of Justice’s views. The first reason for its lack of support for my suggestion is that,
“it is better from the point of view of the administration of justice and judicial case management that the judge trying the case—who will have a direct interest in ensuring that he or she oversees a fair trial process—should be the judge who determines whether a CMP should be allowed”.
This totally ignores the fact that, in ordinary civil litigation, preliminary issues are the province of a Master of the Queen’s Bench, or a registrar. He deals with strike-out applications, case management, and in particular, with disclosure under Part 31 of the rules of the Supreme Court. Applications seeking further disclosure or contesting claims for disclosure are tried by the Master subject to appeal, not necessarily to the trial judge, but to another High Court judge.
In civil proceedings, unlike criminal proceedings, a two-tier system is in existence at the moment. Anything that is ruled out by the Master on the basis that it should not be disclosed or is irrelevant or inadmissible is not put before the trial judge. The trial judge does not become involved in these proceedings until the case is ready for trial and the disclosure issues are already dealt with.
Another aspect of the Master’s work is to deal with, as I said, strike-out applications, where allegations in the pleadings which are irrelevant or scandalous are struck out and never come before the trial judge at all. Clause 9 says that subject to Clauses 7, 8 and 10, the normal rules of court continue to apply, in relation to disclosure. That seems to mean that the Master would govern all applications in the case relating to material which is not the subject of a Section 6 application but, when it comes to sensitive material, those applications are dealt with by the trial judge. I do not believe that the Ministry of Justice has fully taken on board the standard everyday practice in civil proceedings, whether in London or across the country, where preliminary issues are not dealt with by the trial judge.
The second reason given by the Ministry of Justice for rejecting my suggestion is that relevant, but very sensitive, evidence, which would fall to be excluded otherwise from the proceedings under a public interest immunity application, is considered by the trial judge. I draw attention straight away to the difference between “material”, which is the word used throughout the Bill—Section 6 applications relate to material—and evidence, which is what is admissible and what is relevant and what the judge may take into account in coming to his decision.
The ministry says that:
“The issue is about allowing the judge to know the full facts, even in circumstances where they cannot be fully shared with the claimant. So there will usually be no question of the judge’s mind being swayed by evidence which ought not to be taken into account at all. It is about allowing the judge to take all the evidence into account”.
Of course, if all the material is put before the judge—not evidence, but material—he still has to exclude from his mind irrelevant and inadmissible material. Presumably that is multiple hearsay, inexpert opinion, the product of intercept and so on.
On intercept, I want to ask the Minister a very specific question. Under the provisions of this Bill on a Section 6 application, the judge is permitted to look at intercept material. Is he, as the trial judge, permitted to consider intercept evidence for the purposes of his decision on the issues between the parties on material that would be inadmissible in open proceedings? The Bill as drafted suggests that he may take such material into account in making a declaration under Clause 6 that a CMP application may be made, but nothing is said in the following clauses about whether he may take inadmissible evidence, like intercept, into account in formulating his judgment.
Indeed, there is a huge hole in this Bill. It deals with a Section 6 application and how you can make it; it deals with how the judge determines that application and what rules are to be applied; and it deals with how he is required to withhold material the disclosure of which he considers would be damaging to the interests of national security; but having made all those decisions what then? One would have expected a clause saying something to the effect that the judge in open court may take into account the material that he has considered in the Section 6 application. One would have expected at that point that the Bill would not be silent about what happens afterwards and to what degree he can take into account what he has seen but which he cannot disclose. If evidence is inadmissible in open proceedings, how can it be inadmissible in closed proceedings? The inherent unfairness of Section 6 applications is doubly compounded.
That brings me to the Government’s third point. Again, I quote:
“It is normal for judges at all levels to decide whether evidence is admissible and, if it is not, to put it out of their minds when reaching a judgment”.
That seems to confirm that the judge is to take into account only admissible evidence in deciding the issue. Again, I ask: does that apply to the intercept evidence that he is permitted to see in a Section 6 application? Does he put intercept out of his mind?
The fourth point is:
“This is true even when the judge is also the decision maker on the facts—for example in criminal cases in the magistrates’ court, where there is no jury; and in cases in the civil courts where PII claims are made”.
We are most certainly not dealing with criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ court in this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate how often PII hearings do take place in such magistrates’ courts, where the magistrates carry out the Wiley test of weighing the interests of secrecy against the interests of justice. I have never heard of it happening. It may do, but I have never heard of PII applications determined by magistrates. In the civil courts, of course, I repeat, the judge discards material which he rules should not be disclosed as inadmissible —that is to say, it does not enter into the process of his determination of the issues in the case. He must sift out, from the material put to him in the Section 6 application, what is to be discarded because it is inadmissible and take into account only relevant evidence.
The final substantive point made by the Ministry of Justice is that a separate judge would have to review disclosure decisions as the trial progresses. Perhaps he would, but he would be fully informed of the state of the proceedings and of the issue which had arisen in the open proceedings, no doubt by the state’s representative, who would discuss the position with the claimant’s special advocate before such a hearing. There are ways of getting round what goes on in the open hearing which may be required to be reported back to the disclosure judge.
My point is that the designation of a disclosure judge by the Lord Chief Justice, although I put it might be more appropriate to say the Lord Chancellor, or, since it is civil proceedings, the Master of the Rolls would ensure that there is a cadre of judges, security cleared, who would develop expertise in this type of case. They would quickly be adept at redaction, gisting, disclosure to a security ring or whatever way they can deal with evidence or parts of evidence which might be disclosed to the parties. A disclosure judge could, for example, permit the special advocate to ask the claimant specific questions by way of taking instructions and could control the manner in which that would happen. If the disclosure judge decided there was a limited area of the evidence that justice demanded that the trial judge, but not the parties, should see, I suppose that in extremis that could be done. There could be a tiny residue of material which cannot be disclosed by gisting or in any other way to the parties in the open proceedings. Otherwise, however, the trial judge would deal with the issues between the parties only on the admissible and relevant evidence which the disclosure judge had decided should be open to them all.
The Government have suggested that the rationale of my amendment is to avoid the contamination of the judge’s mind in relation to material which he has seen but which is not shared with the parties. The use of the pejorative word “contamination” clouds the issue; the intention of the state in applying for Section 6 proceedings is exactly to influence prejudice or, if you like, contaminate the judge’s mind in coming to his judgment. I am concerned to ensure that justice is seen to be done in an open and transparent way that will command the confidence of the public and continued respect for the rule of law. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. This debate is informed by the far-reaching discussion that we had last Wednesday on the relationship between PII and CMP. I suggest that in that debate there emerged a consensus around a series of principles which can be distilled as follows.
First, the use of CMP should always be a last resort given the inherent injustice in the trial judge seeing evidence that is withheld from one or more of the parties. Secondly, there should be substantial flexibility in considering how far a just determination of the issues could be achieved by relying on the PII procedure where the exclusion of security-sensitive material under PII would not make determination of the issues impossible. Thirdly, the court should always, as far as possible, make use of gisting, redaction and other ways of protecting security-sensitive material rather than relying on CMP. Fourthly, before resorting to CMP the court should always be satisfied that the public interest lies in having closed proceedings rather than in letting the case go without a determination on the merits at all. Finally, in any CMP, the use of closed material should be kept to the minimum.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I sympathise with the objectives of the amendment and I agree with much that was said by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. However, I have this concern about the amendment: in practice it will be very difficult indeed for judges to determine whether to move into a closed material procedure as an abstract preliminary question. We are far more likely to get a sensible result from a judge on whether it is necessary to move into a closed procedure, and a far more sensible result on the balance of competing interests, if the judge is fully aware of all the detail of the case and has heard the opening from the parties concerned on both sides with the open material. The judge will then be able to take a far more informed and sensible view on whether this exceptional procedure is really required.
I am very concerned that if these matters are addressed as a preliminary question, we may well find that judges—very properly, to protect national security—are going to authorise far more closed material procedures than would actually be necessary if the judge were fully aware of all the details of the case and had heard at least the opening statements on an open basis.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Would not the problem then arise that disclosure is a preliminary part of the procedure in ordinary civil proceedings? It is upon disclosure and the pleadings that very important decisions are made: for example, for payments in and settlement of a case, and so on. As I understand the noble Lord, he is saying, “Well, leave it until the trial has begun and both sides, or at least the plaintiff, have opened their case. Only then should issues of disclosure take place”. Now, suppose the trial has started, the expense has been incurred, and something very significant appears as a result of a disclosure application which makes months of work completely unnecessary. Is that not the danger of his course?
Lord Pannick
The noble Lord is of course correct; that is a danger. However, very often, highly sensitive questions of disclosure that raise issues of PII are not dealt with as abstract, preliminary questions, but on the basis that in civil litigation, one needs to see precisely how the case is going to be argued, how material is going to be deployed, and what the issues are. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is going to be very difficult indeed, particularly in this exceptionally sensitive area, for a judge hearing matters on a preliminary basis to form an accurate and informed assessment of what we all agree are going to be exceptional categories of cases where closed procedures are appropriate, on this preliminary basis. That is my concern. It is a difficult issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
This is a very useful dialogue. I hope other noble Lords are listening. Is it not the case that strike-out applications, for example, and all sorts of issues are tried on the pleadings? Donoghue and Stevenson was tried on the pleadings. Major cases are tried on the pleadings because, unlike criminal procedures where the defence statements are laughable, in civil proceedings the case must be set out very fully and considered by both sides, and all the evidence must be produced up front, well before the trial starts.
Lord Pannick
The noble Lord is correct and I accept, at least to an extent, that there may be Clause 6 cases where a discrete, fundamental issue can be identified at an early stage. However, I suggest that there will also be cases—the majority, I suspect—where the issues will not be formulated and clarified in this specific way on a preliminary strike-out basis. I am concerned that it is inevitable that there will also be cases where fresh evidence comes to light or where, as a result of the way the case is put in the trial, new Clause 6 issues arise. It seems impractical to require the trial judge, who has already started to hear the case, then to say, “I am going to stop”, whereupon the issue would go off to a disclosure judge. There are real issues here and I am far from convinced that the amendment, the purposes of which I entirely sympathise with, will result in fewer CMPs than the procedure that is in the Bill.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I share with noble Lords who have proposed this amendment the desire that there should be public confidence in the system. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I do not think that this is the solution. It is true of course that there are circumstances in which it is desirable, if not essential, that one judge should hear one part of the proceedings and another should hear another part, but the question of it being desirable, as it were, to have separate judges is a different matter. In fact, there is quite a strong argument that there should be greater continuity. The days of having one judge hearing preliminary issues and summonses and then the matter moving on to another judge have to some extent been changed in the Commercial Court, the Technology and Construction Court and in many cases in the county courts, so that if possible there is the same judge with a grip on the case right from the beginning.
On the face of it there is considerable advantage to having continuity unless, of course, the process is going to result in injustice to the litigant. We are talking in the context of CMPs with a claimant who may feel that injustice is being done to him or her by virtue of the possibility of closed material provisions. All I can say is that if I were in the position of that claimant, I would much prefer the judge who first heard and no doubt scrutinised the application under Clause 6 to conduct the case throughout in order to make sure that there is fairness, to show the flexibility we discussed in the last session of this Committee, and to deal with what might arise in accordance with the guidance given by the Bill in such a way as to provide justice. Although I wholly understand what motivates the amendment, I fear that it is not going to achieve what it is intended to.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as I said, I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I am particularly seized of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Ultimately it comes down to a question of the public perception of a situation where you have what appear to be secret trials at the behest of the Government of the day. That puts the case in a different category from other kinds of case where there is perhaps a lesser degree of public interest or concern about the nature of the proceedings as a whole.
Cases of this kind are distinguishable from the kind of case that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—another, if I may say, eminent Newcastle holder of high judicial office—referred to. There is a distinction to be made with cases where a judge can put matters out of his mind, and no doubt judges would be able to do so. However, I suspect that the public will be more concerned, to the degree that they are at all concerned about these things, in a case of this kind where we are talking in effect about closed procedures and what can be described loosely but not entirely inaccurately as secret trials.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling these amendments. The issue of the role of the judge in providing fairness during a close material procedure is important. As my noble friend Lord Marks said, we have been looking in our debates at the careful balancing exercise by a judge in these matters. As he has said and other noble Lords have indicated, the issue of public perception and public confidence is important too. I understand why my noble friend might consider it fairer to have a separate judge to deal with the applications for a declaration that a CMP should apply and on individual pieces of evidence. This is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Thomas has been particularly anxious. He raised it at Second Reading and he has raised it with me and with the Lord Chancellor. We have given careful consideration to it. He has had the advantage of being able to anticipate what I am about to say to him, but I would still like to say it and perhaps give some explanation as to why we are not being persuaded by the merits of the proposal.
It is better from the point of view of the administration of justice and judicial case management that the judge trying the case should be the judge who determines whether a CMP should be allowed and what materials should be heard in closed proceedings. That judge has a direct interest in ensuring that he or she oversees a fair trial process. In earlier debates it has been put to the Government that we have supplied insufficient room for judicial discretion and it seems to us that a single judge in charge of the entire process is more likely to guarantee judicial discretion than if the roles of disclosure and trial are compartmentalised.
My noble friend is right to say that there will be cases too when masters decide pre-trial issues. My anticipation of what is likely to happen is much as described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and echoed by my noble friend Lord Faulks. It is more likely that these issues come up in the course of the proceedings. In TPIM cases, for example, there are disclosure issues at the beginning. There is an ongoing issue of disclosure. These will be addressed as the case goes on. Indeed, fresh issues may well arise mid-case. It was also pointed out that in cases where public interest immunity is asserted, this is normally dealt with by the judge hearing the case. I am not saying that it could not be dealt with as a preliminary issue but it very rarely is.
In addition, the whole point of the CMP provisions is to ensure that relevant but very sensitive evidence, which would otherwise be excluded from the proceedings under PII, is considered by the judge. It is not a question of the purpose of this being to exclude material altogether from consideration in the case. It is in fact the opposite: it is to allow it to be considered in some very exceptional circumstances. It is about allowing the judge to know the full facts, even if they cannot be shared with the claimant for reasons of potential damage to national security. There will usually be no question of the judge’s mind being swayed by evidence that ought not to be taken into account at all. It is about allowing the judge to take evidence into account.
My noble friend asked about intercept evidence. The provision in Clause 6 is to put to one side whether or not there would be an exclusion for intercept material in determining whether a party would be required to disclose material, but it is the intention of the Bill that intercept evidence should be permitted. The provision for this is in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2. It is of course a matter for the courts and an individual judge in a particular case as to what weight would be given to that evidence. I hope that answers the very specific question that my noble friend raised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As I understood it, paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 refers to what the judge hears in the Section 6 proceedings. What I do not see, when he draws my attention to it, is that the judge can take into account intercept evidence in determining the issues between the parties in the trial. It seems to be quite wrong that you could take into account intercept evidence that you have heard in closed proceedings for the purposes of the trial when it would be inadmissible if the proceedings were not closed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I refer my noble friend to paragraph 9 and indicate that it is the intention that intercept evidence should be permitted before the court. We may wish to have a debate as to whether that is right or wrong—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps I may point out the problem that then arises. The press have been full of “secret trials” and so on, and now, if the noble and learned Lord is right, the Government are proposing a secret trial, because inadmissible evidence, which you could not adduce in any form in an open proceeding, whether it is sensitive or not—intercept evidence may not be sensitive; the methods of obtaining it may be but the evidence may not be—could not be introduced in an open trial. Yet the noble and learned Lord is saying that the judge can decide the case—not the Section 6 application but the case—on inadmissible evidence that he has heard in secret. What are the press going to make of that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will no doubt be corrected if I have got this wrong but I think it is the case that it is currently permissible in some other areas where there are closed material proceedings. We may well wish to have a fuller debate on intercept evidence rather than dealing with it as part of a debate on whether there should be a separate disclosure judge. I confirm that in fact it is available in all other closed material proceedings, so this is keeping it in line with what happens elsewhere. No doubt we may return to this if my noble friend wants a more fundamental debate on the role of intercept evidence. I just point out what the position is with regard to the Bill, since he asked a specific question.
In any event, judges are accustomed to consider material for the purpose of making evidential and disclosure decisions. It is normal for judges at all levels to decide whether evidence is admissible and, if it is not, to put it out of their minds. I know that there has been some discussion about the extent to which that is possible. Obviously, it is the case in dealing with PII claims where PII is successfully asserted. My noble friend asked about the number of PII claims in criminal cases in magistrates’ courts. That is not really the point that we were seeking to make in the speaking note which he saw; rather we sought to make the point that in magistrates’ courts there must, day in, day out, be cases, not of PII, in which magistrates have to decide on the admissibility of evidence. The argument is heard before the magistrates as to whether particular evidence is admissible or not and, if it is not, they have to put it out of their minds. The point I was making is that there is no problem in principle, even in criminal cases in magistrates’ courts, for judges to decide issues of fact and law. There are cases, too, when they will have to put out of their minds evidence which they have deemed to be inadmissible.
A separate judge would make review of disclosure decisions as the case progresses cumbersome, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The disclosure judge would need to follow the progress of the case in order to understand potential implications for the fairness of proceedings before he or she was able to rule on disclosure issues, and that could cause delay. I accept that this is not the same as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, earlier this evening, but some of the same considerations arise.
I take this opportunity to clarify what I said in an earlier exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, when he said that the Bill will abolish juries. I think that I responded by saying that these are civil proceedings presided over by a single judge and do not relate to criminal proceedings where there would be a jury. For clarification and for the avoidance of doubt, the position is that the Bill amends the Senior Courts Act 1981, and its Northern Ireland equivalent, which contain a residual right to jury trial in some civil cases. I do not think that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had in mind, but it is important to say that for completeness and clarification.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
For the avoidance of doubt, I was involved in a case of false imprisonment tried as a civil case in the Royal Courts of Justice in front of a jury, and I am not aware that that possibility has been abolished.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
For completeness, the Bill allows the court, however, to refuse an application for a jury where it is of the view that the trial will involve a CMP. Highly sensitive information clearly could not be shared with a jury without presenting serious national security concerns and risks, but the original point is that the Bill does not affect trial by jury in criminal cases, since the Bill does not relate to criminal cases. Of course, criminal cases have been adduced with regard to Northern Ireland, where the practice is to have a separate disclosure judge but in a very specific context—the trial of serious terrorist offences in a climate where there a real risk of paramilitary and community-based pressures on jurors and a history of terrorist threats against judges. There, it is a very valuable safeguard, but I do not believe that such considerations apply to CMPs in civil cases.
I reassure my noble friend who raised this matter earlier that although we have given them considerable consideration, we remain unpersuaded by the arguments for a separate disclosure judge. We believe that the approach we are proposing here will lead to fairness with the same judge involved in all aspects of the case. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am not surprised, but I am very disappointed by that answer. I hope that things can settle down over the Recess so that the matter can be reconsidered. It seems obvious to me that it would be in the interests of justice for there to be a separate disclosure judge as I have described.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of course issues can arise in the course of the case where what did not appear to be relevant becomes relevant. That can be covered—and one way of doing it would be to give the special advocate a watching brief throughout the case. Particularly if the Attorney-General is paying his expenses, there is no reason why he should not continue in that role, to watch how the case develops and to see if applications need to be made.
It must be in the public interest that disclosure should come at the proper time, early on in the proceedings before a case is ready for trial. At that point, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, serious decisions are made: is this case one where you make or accept an offer, settle or negotiate? In what way can you shorten the cost and expense of a trial? Certainly in my experience, one always attempts to do that because a settlement may produce a better result than a judgment in your favour if you negotiate hard and well.
I wish I could expand a little further on this, but I am afraid I cannot. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment but hope that we will have further discussions on the matter and come back to it on Report.