House of Commons
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
1. What plans he has to increase the uptake of restorative justice.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The Government intend to publish a framework for restorative justice that will improve the victim’s awareness and access to restorative justice. We have also introduced legislation to put restorative justice on to a statutory footing for the first time.
Dr Huppert
I am delighted to see a statutory basis for restorative justice. The Minister is, I hope, aware of the experiments in police-organised restorative justice conferences for victims of serious crime—a study carried out by criminologists from the university of Cambridge from 2001 to 2005—which showed that more than £10 of the costs of crime could be saved for every pound spent on this process. Will he ensure that ring-fenced funding is available for restorative justice, as well as the statutory basis?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are already investing more than £1.5 million to help build capacity in dealing with restorative justice throughout the criminal justice system and, in particular, for pre-sentence restorative justice, which is what his question refers to. I am also delighted to report that over 18,000 police officers have received training in restorative justice techniques. This is contributing to the greater success of our restorative justice measures.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend come and visit Swindon, where we are piloting neighbourhood justice panels, involving the community in making decisions about wrongdoers and having a real sense of control for the first time in relation to crimes that affect a large number of people in my community?
Damian Green
I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend. It is always life-enhancing to go to Swindon—I speak as a fan of Reading football club. He is right that pilots have found that restorative justice is associated with an estimated 14% reduction in the frequency of reoffending and, perhaps even more importantly, that 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice are satisfied with the experience. Since we want to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, that is an extremely encouraging result.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
2. If he will bring forward proposals to ensure that victims of crime receive compensation from those who committed the crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Courts have the power to require offenders to pay compensation to their victims for any injury, loss or damage caused by the offence. Courts also have robust powers to recover unpaid compensation orders and other financial penalties.
Priti Patel
Does the Minister agree that there should be a presumption in favour of the victims of crime receiving compensation from offenders? Will she be issuing any guidance to the courts to ensure that that happens?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to ensuring that as many victims as possible receive compensation from offenders. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 places a new duty on courts to consider imposing compensation in any case where the victim has suffered injury, loss or damage. Issuing guidance to courts is a matter for the independent Sentencing Council, not for the Government, but the council’s guidelines already draw the courts’ attention to their powers to impose compensation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
To what extent is this form of compensation a substitute for the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which has been cut to ribbons by the order laid in July this year?
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Would the Minister be open to fresh thinking on this? If, for example, prisoners were given the opportunity to work, earn and keep money for themselves and their families, perhaps they could pay back some of that money to the victims of their crime and also pay tax on it, which would be of benefit to the public, as well as having a rehabilitative effect.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On 11 October 2011, when Louise Casey, the first victims commissioner, resigned, the former Lord Chancellor said that he was urgently considering the future of the role. Thirteen months on—yesterday, in fact—was the closing date for applications to be Ms Casey’s 10-day-a-month replacement. What signal does it send to victims that this Government first doubt the need for a commissioner, then delay appointing one for more than a year, and finally make it a half-hearted, part-time job?
Mrs Grant
For a long time, victims have felt completely unsupported by the criminal justice system, and it is my job, as victims Minister, to try and put that right. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are raising money for victims through the victims surcharge and the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, and we are giving victims a louder voice through the appointment of a victims’ commissioner. I look forward to making that appointment, and meeting and working with the commissioner.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
3. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
6. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
12. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
14. What plans he has to increase public confidence in community sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
The Government are determined to ensure that community sentences deliver punishment, rehabilitation and reparation. We are legislating to require courts to include a punitive element in every community order, as the public would expect, and to enable the electronic tracking of offenders.
Mr Ruffley
I hope that Justice Ministers will not go soft on introducing an element of shame and real punishment in these new community penalties. I am told that under community payback offenders might wear a yellow vest with the words “community payback” on the back, and that these can be removed if the probation staff think it appropriate. What we need are community punishments where offenders are in the community with orange dayglo boiler suits with the word “offender” on the back to inculcate some sense of shame and to make these tough sentences, not the soft ones we have had up until now.
Jeremy Wright
I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. When I have seen community payback in the community, it has been evident that those carrying it out are offenders. They are easily identifiable. That is partly for the reasons he gives, but it is also to ensure that people in the community understand that work is being done to repair some of the damage that these offenders have done in the communities where they are working.
Andrew Jones
I have seen work done in my constituency as part of community sentences tackling projects that would otherwise not have been done, thus benefiting communities and, in particular, reinforcing the merits of work. Does my hon. Friend have any plans to extend the element of work in community sentences?
Jeremy Wright
As I said, we will ensure that, whenever a community order is passed, the sentencer will impose at least one element of punishment. That is what the public would expect. One element of punishment could be community work of the sort my hon. Friend described. It is important that there is a good channel of communication between the community and the organisations within it, and the probation service and those administering community payback in order to ensure that the work is done where people want it done.
Christopher Pincher
Tamworth police, led by Chief Inspector Coxhead, are clear about the potential power of community sentencing and restorative justice, so may I echo my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) in calling on those on the Treasury Bench to implement with full speed neighbourhood resolution panels, so that communities themselves feel that they have a hand in community sentencing?
Jeremy Wright
I am disappointed not to receive an invitation to Tamworth. None the less, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we move forward with the work being done in Staffordshire and elsewhere with neighbourhood justice panels. We want to see what work can be done by and in communities to ensure that low-level offences are dealt with appropriately. The broader point about restorative justice is also right. This is an important innovation, and we can get a great deal out of it—mostly for victims, although there are reoffending benefits as well.
Jack Lopresti
Can my hon. Friend assure me that community orders will continue to address the problems that have caused—or at least contributed to—offending behaviour in the first place, such as drug abuse, alcoholism and mental health problems?
Jeremy Wright
Yes, I can. We are saying that there should be an element of punishment in every community order, unless there are exceptional circumstances, but that does not prevent a sentencer from passing whatever other measures in the order they believe appropriate for the purposes of rehabilitation. My hon. Friend is right to identify some of those, but there are of course many more. This is all about reducing reoffending. That is partly about punishment, but it is also about ensuring that someone does not go right back to the same cycle of offending.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Work in the community is obviously a valuable element of punishment, but it is quite a crowded field, with various voluntary youth organisations and the unemployed also jostling for that work. What other specific types of punishment does the Minister have in mind? Will he give us a flavour of what will happen?
Jeremy Wright
It is first worth pointing out that we have toughened up the work requirement, so we will now expect people sentenced to community payback to go and do it very soon afterwards. We expect them to do it for four days a week and we expect them to do it properly. If they do not, they will have breached the order and there will be consequences. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that there will be other elements to a community order which can properly be seen as punitive, whether it is a restriction on movement, an exclusion order from certain places or a financial penalty. There is a range of options available to the court, but we think—and I think his constituents would think—that each order should include a punitive element.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The Minister has talked about potential breaches if—as we would probably expect—an increased number of orders are made. What risk assessment has his Department carried out to determine the likely percentage of breaches, and what would be the impact on the Prison Service of having to find additional places?
Jeremy Wright
It does not follow automatically that if someone breaches an order, the penalty would be a period of imprisonment, although that is possible. I think the right thing is to say to people: “If you receive a period of unpaid work as a punishment, we expect you to do it and to do it properly. If you don’t do it properly, you will find yourself back in court, and you may find yourself going to prison.” That is absolutely the right approach.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome much of what the Minister has said this morning, and I am sure there will be support for it in all parts of the Chamber. The key to effective community sentences is also proper supervision. How will he address the legitimate concern, which many people have, that increasing the use of community sentences at the same time as making cuts in probation could lead to less effective community sentences, with offenders being neither properly reformed nor punished?
Jeremy Wright
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking at ways in which we can deliver a better probation service, more rehabilitation for offenders across the board and better outcomes, because this is the key. It is not just about the processes we go through; it is about the outcomes we achieve. We are seeking to reward those who provide rehabilitative services in a way that also reduces reoffending. Doing that will help the offender and the wider community. It is also, incidentally, a good deal for the taxpayer.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
4. What progress he has made in developing an evidence-based policy to reduce reoffending.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The Prime Minister has restated our determination to apply an intelligent approach to reducing reoffending. By 2015, I intend to apply payment by results to the majority of rehabilitation work conducted with offenders in the community. In addition, the National Offender Management Service published its commissioning intentions for the coming financial year on 1 November, clearly stating our commitment to evidence-informed commissioning.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
As the House heard earlier, the Ministry of Justice’s own survey has revealed that restorative justice can reduce reoffending by as much as 14%. These methods are being effectively used by probation and prison services in Durham, which has one of the lowest reoffending rates in the north-east. What further steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this evidence-based approach is supported and has the necessary resources to be effective?
Chris Grayling
We are looking to allow for the greater use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system—for example, by allowing an element of restorative justice between a verdict and the sentence in court, to establish whether that can have an impact on the sentence that would otherwise be passed and the likelihood of the offender to reoffend. I would commend all those who are using restorative justice. It is a common-sense early intervention in the criminal justice system and there is no doubt that it is having an impact on offending rates.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When the Secretary of State is developing his evidence-based policy, will he look at the Ministry of Justice’s own figures, which show that the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend, and that the lowest reoffending rate for any sentence handed down by the courts is for indeterminate sentences for public protection?
Chris Grayling
May I say clearly to my hon. Friend that I share his view? I think prison is a very important part of the criminal justice system, I believe that offenders should serve a prison sentence appropriate for the crime they have committed and I have given a clear commitment that there will be no strategy under my leadership of the Ministry of Justice to reduce the number of prison places artificially. I want to see the right people going to prison in the first place.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) spookily teed that up rather nicely for me. We all want to see policies based on evidence. The evidence tells us that the most effective means of protecting the public from convicted sex offenders is to keep them behind bars for as long as it takes to stop them being a threat. The Government took away so-called indeterminate sentences. It was a dangerous mistake and we said so at the time. When will the Secretary of State put that right and protect our citizens?
Chris Grayling
We have introduced longer determinate sentences to deal with the most serious offenders and, unlike the previous Government, we have introduced a “two strikes and you’re out rule” for the worst sex offenders, to ensure that if they offend for a second time, they will go to jail for the rest of their lives.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
5. What progress he has made on reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
13. What progress he has made on reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 was approved by the House yesterday. Having already been approved by the other place, it now has the approval of Parliament and will be implemented by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on 27 November this year.
Julie Hilling
Given that the scheme will no longer pay out for criminal injuries such as a broken jaw, and that the awards for more serious injuries are not being increased, will the Minister confirm that the spin is just not true and that the changes represent a cut of £50 million for innocent victims?
Mrs Grant
Absolutely not. The aim is to provide proper compensation for those who have suffered serious criminal injuries. When the injuries are less serious, prompt, practical victim service provision will be provided, which is what victims say that they need. In addition to that, up to £50 million will be provided for victims from the victim surcharge.
Rosie Cooper
In the consultation on the cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Ministry of Justice promised to protect payments to the most vulnerable and seriously injured victims of crime. Why, then, will the most severe cuts affecting compensation for loss of earnings fall on more than 1,000 of the most seriously injured victims of crime and on the dependants of murder victims? Have not the innocent victims of crime suffered enough?
Mrs Grant
We are of course concerned about all victims. The scheme provides some payment in recognition of loss of earnings, but it was never designed to compensate for a full lifetime’s loss of earnings. Eligible applicants will receive a clear, predictable sum that will supplement other amounts that they may receive from other sources, such as state benefits. Our changes to the scheme should also allow victims to receive payments in a much speedier manner.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Do not the changes confirm the important principle that, although the state is not liable for compensating for the criminal actions of others, it has a particular responsibility for the victims of serious crime, to ensure that they do not have to wait months or even years for compensation from an unsustainable scheme?
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister tell the House what consultations on the matter of the reform of the criminal injuries compensation scheme were held with the devolved Administrations?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Having butchered the criminal injuries compensation scheme by £50 million, starving blameless victims of financial redress, will the Minister tell us when we will see the details of the hastily cobbled-together hardship fund? Will she also tell us whether the fund will be topped up when those in hardship exceed the mere 700 or so whom the scheme is likely to cover, instead of the 30,000 who will lose out as a result of these changes?
Mrs Grant
I am not going to take any lessons from a party that put this country in the most awful financial difficulties—[Interruption.] Absolutely not. The current system is not sustainable or sensible, and it needs to be simplified. As I have already said, the new victim surcharge will raise up to £50 million for victims services.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
7. What plans he has to review prisoners’ entitlement to privileges.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
It is really important that we ensure that the public have confidence in the prison system, and it is crucial that they are assured that any privileges earned in prison are gained through hard work and appropriate behaviour. In the light of this, the Prisons Minister and I have immediately moved to start a review of the policy around the incentives scheme for prisoners. We need to be confident that the system of incentives has credibility with the public. There are important operational reasons for the original policy, but we need to be clear that the incentives are pitched at the right level.
Mr Jones
Many of my constituents feel that some of the privileges provided in our prisons are far too soft on the inmates. How is my right hon. Friend preparing to reverse the tradition whereby many of our prison inmates have been left to pass their time in an enforced situation in which they are completely idle most of the day, with little or no meaningful activity?
Chris Grayling
First, I am quite prepared to make changes to the incentive regime in our prisons if it proves necessary to do so. I am absolutely clear that prisons should be places that rehabilitate, not places to which people have any desire to go back. It is equally important, however, that we have within our prisons proper processes to ensure that prisoners are trained and given work experience. One of the achievements of the current Government over the last few months is that we have seen a steady increase, under the stewardship of the previous Secretary of State, which the current ministerial team is now taking on, in the number of hours worked by prisoners in our prisons. That has got to be right.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
8. What plans he has to introduce a payment by results scheme to reduce reoffending.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
By 2015, I intend to apply payment by results to the majority of rehabilitation work conducted with offenders in the community. Providers will be commissioned to rehabilitate offenders, and those who are successful at reducing reoffending will be rewarded. I will announce detailed proposals shortly.
Amber Rudd
Studies such as the recent report from the Prison Reform Trust show that women have higher rates of reoffending. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on plans to divert women from custody in the first place, particularly those with short sentences?
Chris Grayling
I do agree. One of the first prisons I visited was Holloway. I saw at first hand the very different challenge we face with women offenders. One of the earliest steps I took was to separate ministerial responsibility for men and women in our prisons, asking the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) to take on the role of Minister with responsibility for women in prisons, and to look at whether we are getting the regime right and how we should adapt it to reflect the very different challenges we face with women in our prisons.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
9. What consideration the Government has given to the UK opting out en masse from EU Justice and Home Affairs directives.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to this House on 15 October, the Government are currently minded to opt out of the measures included in the 2014 decision en bloc, and to consider which measures it is in our national interest to rejoin. This is a complex issue, and we are considering carefully the individual merits of each measure, continuing to work with law enforcement and criminal justice partners to do so. We are committed to a vote in both Houses before we finalise our decision.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he tell me whether he is considering undertaking international co-operation on EU justice and home affairs rather than simply looking at the option of opting back in to specific EU directives?
Chris Grayling
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is absolutely clear that we can work with international partners effectively in fighting crime, as we do with non-EU allies around the world, without necessarily handing over sovereignty over these measures to the European Court of Justice. We are looking very carefully at where there is good reason to opt back in and it is in the national interest to do so, but we will not take those decisions lightly.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Yes. [Interruption.] I am fully awake, thank you.
The Members behind the Secretary of State are determined to break with so much to do with European law and Europe as a whole. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the European convention on human rights, the European Court of Human Rights and all the advantages that have been given to people who would otherwise be denied human rights across Europe are very important, and that we should dedicate ourselves to supporting that principle even though at times a European court, just like a UK court, can make decisions that are inconvenient and are seen to be unhelpful to national Governments? That is the whole principle of the independence of the judicial system.
Chris Grayling
The European convention on human rights was written in the 1950s by Conservatives at a time when Stalin was in power in Russia and people were being sent to the gulags without trial. What has happened over 40 or 50 years is that the judgments around the human rights framework have moved a long way from the original intentions of the authors of the convention. That is why it is my strong belief that change has to happen.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
10. What progress he has made in encouraging tribunal judges to supply feedback to Department for Work and Pensions decision-makers on the reasons for successful employment and support allowance appeals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The provision of feedback on tribunals’ decisions is a matter for the judiciary, but new arrangements were introduced in July. They were agreed by the chamber president and the Department for Work and Pensions, and allow judges to select reasons for their decisions from an agreed list.
Sheila Gilmore
At the weekend, I spoke to a constituent who was making her second appeal in a year. She was told that there would not be a decision for four months, although the number of tribunal members appointed in Scotland has doubled in the last year. Does her experience not illustrate the huge importance of ensuring that proper reasons for decisions are given to DWP decision-makers, so that the decisions are right in the first place? That would be better than the provision of a drop-down menu or a very limited selection of reasons.
Mrs Grant
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working closely with the DWP to improve the quality of the original decisions and also the reconsideration process, so that only appropriate appeals reach the tribunal. As for waiting times, dealing with matters in a timely fashion is of course very important. I am pleased to announce that the waiting time between the receipt of an appeal to disposal has fallen from 22 weeks to 19.3 weeks, and that in Scotland it is down to 12.6 weeks.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
11. How many foreign national prisoners were repatriated to their home country to serve their custodial sentence in 2011.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
The simple answer is “Not nearly enough.” In 2011, 32 foreign national prisoners and one British national were sent to other countries to serve their sentences. The number of prisoners being repatriated is still unacceptably small, as it has been for a number of years under both Governments. I am not satisfied with that, and I am determined to push the numbers up, but the House should be aware that this is a difficult issue. We need the collaboration of other countries, and we are working hard to secure it.
Nick Smith
What a dismal record. Back in November 2010, the Prime Minister said that he would “personally” lead a new drive to remove foreign prisoners. Given that the number repatriated in 2011 was just a third of the number in Labour’s last year in government, is this not yet another illustration of a Prime Minister who over-promises but under-delivers?
Chris Grayling
I will not take any lectures from a party that was responsible for the levels of immigration to this country that we have seen over the past decade. There are now fewer foreign nationals in our prisons than was the case under Labour. I intend to continue the drive both to deport people when they have finished their sentences, and to deport them through prisoner transfer agreements as soon as we possibly can.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend make it a departmental priority to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with Commonwealth member countries, especially Nigeria and Jamaica, which seem to be the source of most of the foreign national offenders in our prisons?
Chris Grayling
I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance to that effect. The prisons Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright)—and I have met our Jamaican counterparts during the last few weeks. We are focusing our efforts to negotiate compulsory transfer agreements on the countries where the problem is greatest. Of course, what we inherited from the previous Government were voluntary agreements, which, as we all know, have a limited effect.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
15. What plans he has to use training and education to reduce reoffending.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We fully recognise the importance of training and education in improving an offender’s chances of employment and thereby reducing reoffending. That is central to the reforms set out in the joint Ministry of Justice and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills strategy “Making Prisons Work”. My officials are also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to provide enhanced employment support via the Work programme.
Gordon Henderson
I have three prisons in my constituency—[Hon. Members: “Well done!”] Yes! They work very closely together, and have an excellent record of effective education and training. Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Sheppey to see for himself the good work that is being done to reduce reoffending?
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to all the staff who work in the three prisons in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I should be delighted to visit Sheppey in the next few months and see, with him, the work that is being done. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents—not just those who work in the Prison Service, but those who provide it with support services. What Sheppey is doing for the criminal justice system is enormously important.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Training for work and cutting back on drug use are two proven ways of reducing reoffending. Will the Secretary of State therefore comment on the independent monitoring board report on HMP Risley, showing that, because of Government cuts, training is being cut back and illegal drug use is increasing, thereby undermining officers’ past good work? That is likely to impose a further cost on the community if offending goes up as a result.
Chris Grayling
It is simply not the case that we are seeing the kind of problems the hon. Lady mentions across the prison system. The reality is that we have no choice but to deal with the financial challenges left behind by the previous Government. The trick is delivering a more effective system for less money, and that is what we are doing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
16. What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of offenders serving repeated short sentences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
We recognise that those sentenced to short custodial sentences have high reoffending rates and we are looking to see how best to deliver rehabilitation for this group. By the end of 2015 we intend to apply the payment-by-results approach right across our rehabilitation work with offenders, so that fewer of them, including those who have been sentenced to short terms, return to prison.
Bob Blackman
One of the concerns in the wider community is that people get into a cycle of offending, prison and then reoffending. One problem is that the courts are so slow in processing their cases that they cannot be punished in time and be kept inside when they deserve imprisonment. What is the Minister going to do about reducing the time it takes the courts to process reoffenders, and what will he do, too, about extending their sentences?
Jeremy Wright
We are keen to see greater efficiencies throughout the criminal justice system, which will assist in addressing the problem my hon. Friend describes. The other issue, of course, is that those sentenced to very short terms—12 months or shorter—have very little assistance or intervention when their period of custodial imprisonment has ended. There is no period of licence, and we want to look at ways in which we can ensure that people in that group, who do offend at very high rates, receive the intervention they need to reduce their reoffending rates.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
17. Whether he has made a comparative assessment of the number of claims for compensation for whiplash injuries in courts in (a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Germany.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
We have not conducted comparative assessments, but we know that whiplash claims are higher in England and Wales than elsewhere. The increase in whiplash claims at a time when there are fewer reported road traffic accidents is unacceptable. The Government will consult shortly on measures to tackle the cost of whiplash claims.
David Mowat
The very high level of claims in the UK pushes up insurance premiums for ordinary people by hundreds of pounds a year. In Germany, two medical opinions are required before claims go forward. Are we considering introducing that here, and what other measures are we considering to sort out this industry?
Mrs Grant
The Government are committed to finding ways of tackling fraudulent whiplash claims. We are about to consult on increasing the small claims threshold for personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents from £1,000 to £5,000. We are also about to consult on the creation of independent medical panels, which could improve diagnosis, transparency, consistency and identification in respect of exaggerated injuries.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
18. What plans he has to reduce the number of young people within the criminal justice system.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
Reducing the number of young people in the criminal justice system continues to be a priority for this Government, and a range of work is going on to prevent youth offending. Youth offending teams play a key role, and cross-Government initiatives such as the troubled families programme, the liaison and diversion programme and the ending gang and youth violence programme demonstrate a co-ordinated approach to this issue.
Steve Brine
The Minister will know that members of the Justice Committee were told on a recent visit to YOI Hindley that breaches frequently occur when young people are released from custody and return to their community, from which they are often excluded by order of the court. That, of course, negatively hits reoffending figures, and the same circle continues to be drawn. Will the Minister work with colleagues across Government to make sure that young offenders leaving the secure estate have far better resettlement plans, as that is one sure-fire way to reduce reoffending?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I look forward to receiving the Select Committee report on this matter, which we are expecting shortly. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we are working not only with other Departments, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, but with the Youth Justice Board to ensure that young people have access to suitable accommodation on release from custody. The YJB is also working to improve resettlement on release from custody by encouraging local services to work more collaboratively to ensure that young people have suitable accommodation, which is an essential step in stopping them reoffending.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Under Labour, the number of first-time offenders fell by a third. Does the Minister believe it is realistic to think that that trend can continue when the cuts to local authorities are as deep as they are? He says he has a co-ordinated approach, but what is happening in practice?
Damian Green
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that I do not need to project that things are carrying on in the right direction—they are carrying on in the right direction. In the past year, the number of first-time entrants to the youth justice system has fallen by 20%, from 45,900 to 36,700. I am grateful to her for giving me the chance to give those figures to the House.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
19. What progress he has made in tackling corporate offences of fraud, bribery and money laundering.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The coalition has a clear commitment to tackling corporate offending: we implemented the Bribery Act 2010 from July 2011; we published the “Fighting Fraud Together” strategy, which is led by the National Fraud Authority; we established the Economic Crime Command in 2011, as part of the National Crime Agency; and we introduced provisions on deferred prosecution agreements in England and Wales in the Crime and Courts Bill.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Clearly the infrastructure is in place for prosecuting these offences. Will my right hon. Friend work closely with the Serious Fraud Office to ensure that prosecutions are brought against corporate bodies when offences have been committed?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes an important point, but of course the SFO acts independently of Government. As I said, the Government take all forms of economic crime seriously and what we can do is provide the SFO and other prosecutorial bodies with the tools they need to carry out their roles. That is why, for example, we introduced clauses to provide for the deferred prosecution agreements, which we think will be a valuable tool. They have tough requirements, such as a financial penalty, reparation for victims and repayments of profits. That kind of practical tool in the hands of the prosecutors will make us much more effective at fighting economic crime.
Mr Speaker
We are ahead of schedule, but the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M Morris) is in his place and we can safely proceed to topical questions.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about the Abu Qatada case. I strongly support the comments that the Home Secretary made yesterday, and would indicate to the House that my Department will do everything it can to support the Home Office in its efforts to get Abu Qatada deported. All of us believe that the law should not operate in this way, and this case underlines my view that there is a real need for major changes to the way in which the European human rights framework operates.
Grahame M. Morris
May I refer the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) back to the answer she gave a few moments ago in response to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)? Given the importance of this to victims of workplace accidents and industrial diseases, will the Minister meet a small delegation of Labour MPs to receive representations on the implications of the proposal to amend the ceiling on small claims compensation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
Yes, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the delegation.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
T3. Is it not rather counter-intuitive, given the Secretary of State’s excellent views, to be closing rather than opening prisons? Why then are the Government consulting on closing Lincoln prison, which, as far as I know, has caused no trouble to the community since Eamon de Valera escaped from it during the first world war, and which provides 400 jobs, and humanely and safely locks our local villains away?
Chris Grayling
First, let me explain the context to my hon. Friend. We are in the middle of a programme of new for old in the Prison Service; we are bringing on stream new capacity as well as closing down old capacity, as part of a drive to bring down the overall cost of running the Prison Service by making the unit cost of each place cheaper. We are looking at a number of options, and no decisions have been taken on Lincoln prison. There is no proposal to close it, and I can assure him that I will personally be looking carefully at this issue, as I am well aware of the geographical circumstances of Lincoln, particularly the lack of good transport to other locations in the prison system.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary referred to the Abu Qatada case. We have also recently heard the ruling of Reading county court, which held that a same-sex couple had been discriminated against by a bed and breakfast owner who refused to let them stay in her B and B. Will the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice join me in welcoming that ruling?
Chris Grayling
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I never comment on individual cases, but I voted for the law behind that case and stand by the decision I took at the time to vote for it.
Sadiq Khan
Three minutes ago, the Justice Secretary commented on a case from yesterday. Three minutes later, he is unwilling to comment on a case from three weeks ago. He looks uncomfortable—does he think that he was wrong when, as shadow Home Secretary, he said:
“B and Bs should be able to turn away gay couples”?
Will he now apologise for those comments and commend the Equality Act 2010, which is doing so much to tackle discrimination in this country?
Chris Grayling
I was not aware that I was accountable to the House for Opposition roles, but I will say again to the right hon. Gentleman that I voted for the law as it stands and I stand by that decision.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
T4. Does my right hon. Friend have plans to use the opportunities provided by new technology in tracking offenders?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
Yes, we do. It will be important to consider the opportunities that GPS-based technology, in particular, gives us in the monitoring of offenders not just to enforce elements of a community order, such as an exclusion order, but to act as a deterrent for those offenders who might be minded to reoffend.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T2. The Association of Child Abuse Lawyers has expressed great concern about drastic changes to the rules on legal costs that are due in April next year. They believe that those changes could have serious implications for the victims of childhood abuse. Is the Secretary of State aware of those concerns and what does he propose to do about them, especially in view of recent events?
Chris Grayling
It is nice to get a serious question from the Opposition. These are sensitive issues and we have had to take difficult decisions about the legal aid system. We have the most expensive legal aid system in Europe and, given the financial challenges we inherited, no change was not an option. We will, of course, continue to review the impact of the changes we have made to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I will not be afraid to reconsider some of those issues if it proves that what we have done has created a major problem.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
T5. Will the Secretary of State urgently review the proposed changes to the Bail Act 1976 contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? In some cases, magistrates will be forced to free defendants who they know will fail to surrender, will commit further offences while on bail and, in some cases, will go on to intimidate witnesses? To make matters worse, as the 2012 Act stands, if those offenders breach their bail conditions, the magistrates’ hands will be tied and they will have no choice but to rebail them. Is this not a ridiculous state of affairs?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
The one point on which I will take issue with my hon. Friend is the fact that he talks about magistrates “knowing” that someone will commit an offence in the future. It is reasonably well established in British law that people are innocent until they are proved guilty—
Damian Green
To suggest, as the shadow Justice Secretary is doing from a sedentary position, that he, or a magistrate, knows who will commit a crime in the future seems to me to be an absolute breach of all the traditions of our justice system. Of course, if an offender goes on to commit another offence while on bail, including intimidation of a witness, that offence will be considered in its own right. If it could attract a sentence of imprisonment, the option of remand is still open to magistrates. I think we should stick by the basic tenets of justice.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on the question of payment by results and reoffending, the Secretary of State talked about the importance of evidence. Will he share with the House his assessment of the reasons behind the failure of the Mayor of London’s Project Heron at Feltham?
Chris Grayling
Of course I am not responsible for the Mayor of London’s projects. On the question of our whole approach to the rehabilitation of offenders and the introduction of payment by results, the nature of payment by results means that we provide incentives to providers to deliver what works best. There is constant pressure in a payment- by-results system to find best practice and apply it in a way that delivers best results for offenders and for the taxpayer.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T6. The social impact bond from Peterborough prison to reduce reoffending was launched just over a year ago. Full results will only be available after year four. What assessment has the Secretary of State made so far of the effects of the work done? Has it reduced reoffending?
Chris Grayling
We have not yet done the assessment—the detailed work—but I think there are good grounds for believing that good work has been done, and I will provide more information in due course.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The lessons from the Qatada case are that it is quite difficult to deport people to jurisdictions that do not adhere to, as a basis, the UN convention on torture, for example. What is the Department doing to encourage jurisdictions outside Europe to sign up to a higher standard of international law, so that there is a greater sense of parallel of the rights of justice in this country, in Europe and in other parts of the world?
Chris Grayling
Of course, it is the role of Britain and other democratic nations to encourage non-democratic countries around the world to adopt democratic principles, the rule of law and a proper fair, independent judiciary. But I have to say that I do not believe it was ever the intention of those who created the human rights framework to which we are currently subject that people who have an avowed intent to do damage to this country should be able to use human rights laws to prevent their deportation back to their country of origin.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
T7. Does the Secretary of State believe that the election of police and crime commissioners on Thursday will help restore public confidence in the way that offences are dealt with in local communities?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend, not least because although they are police and crime commissioners, people may have focused too much on the policing aspect. The crime reduction aspect is at the heart of what these new elected bodies will do, and crime prevention and some of the things that we have been discussing earlier this morning, such as restorative justice, will play a very important part in each locality in improving the criminal justice system and improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. The PCCs will play a significant part in that.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Harassment, threatening behaviour and bullying on social media are all increasing. What training has the Department put in place to enable probation officers, magistrates, judges and the court services to deal with that?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady is right that it is an increasing problem, and we will want to ensure that all those who have responsibility in this area understand it, and understand the reach of it. Of course, she will be aware that it is a problem that has, sadly, found its way into prisons also, so we want to ensure that we do everything we can to stamp it out, as she says.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
T8. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might update the House on discussions he has had with the Home Office about deporting foreign national prisoners straight away when they complete their sentence in the UK.
Chris Grayling
We have regular contacts at both ministerial and official level and, of course, we now have the benefit of the presence of the former Immigration Minister, who brings knowledge of both sides of that challenge to our team. We intend to continue to work as hard as we can to secure the deportation of offenders after their sentences, as well as to transfer prisoners when we can during their sentences.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Has the Secretary of State any concerns that the provisions in the criminal injuries compensation scheme voted on by the House last night in terms of sex abuse victims aged between 13 and 15 are a dangerous and dubious legislative signal to be sent by this Parliament as its first legislative signal in the wake of the scandal concerning Jimmy Savile?
Mrs Grant
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but would point out that our reforms have led to no changes to the 2008 scheme in respect of certain sexual abuse issues. Further guidance has been given on other particular matters. Victims coming forward in the Jimmy Savile case should certainly be able to make applications for compensation.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
When innocent people can be framed on social media sites will the Government consider, with some urgency, looking at a certain part of the libel laws? Innocent people do not deserve to be named; they certainly do not deserve to be put through the grilling that certain people have faced. Would the Secretary of State and the Government look at that as a matter of urgency?
Chris Grayling
I am as concerned as anybody about what has taken place over the last two weeks. It is utterly wrong that anybody should have their name blackened inappropriately and falsely on any form of social media. Of course, the laws of libel apply equally to what is published on a Facebook or Twitter page as they do to what appears in printed form, so those who are damaged in that way have full legal redress to try and get proper justice done.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
What discussions are taking place between Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Justice and those in the Department for Work and Pensions in anticipation of the further burden that will be put on the tribunals service when the new personal independence payment comes in next year, because experience shows that the level of appeals resulting from benefit changes is very high?
Chris Grayling
We will continue to do everything we can to improve the process in both Departments. I am absolutely clear that we want to get the appeals process right, both in the tribunals service and in Jobcentre Plus, where we have introduced a mandatory reconsideration process. Ultimately, the reason we are doing all that is that there are large numbers of people out there who can return to work and make a better lot of their lives, which we want to help them to do, but unless we have a reassessment process, we will never find those people to deliver that help to.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Does the prisons Minister realise that staff at HM Prison Northumberland, who have successfully merged two prisons and earned a positive report from the inspector, are sickened and infuriated that the public sector bid will not go through to the final market testing round because of promises from private sector providers that the Department might lack the capacity to verify?
Jeremy Wright
I understand the disappointment that will be felt by those who put in the public sector bid at HM Prison Northumberland but, as I have explained to my right hon. Friend, the difficulty is that the difference between the public sector bid and those we are taking forward to the next round of the competition was substantial, and it would not have been responsible to ignore that gap. However, I also say to him that this is a two-stage process. It will be important that the Government are satisfied that those who go through to the next round of the competition have the capacity to deliver what they say they can deliver, and we will look carefully at the bids in that context.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
When my constituent Michael Dye was killed following a single blow at a football match between Wales and England last year, his family expected justice, but when they got to court the sentence that was given came as a complete surprise to them. What more can be done to ensure that the families of victims of crime have a better awareness of the likely sentence the perpetrators will receive in court?
Chris Grayling
I have a huge amount of sympathy for a family in that appalling situation. I have sat down and talked with many families who have lost loved ones as a result of violent crime and absolutely accept that our criminal justice system often does not seem responsive enough to their needs, does not explain enough to them what is happening and does not give them details of the process, even to the extent that an offender who has been convicted of a violent crime can be back on the streets without the victims knowing about it. That is why one of the first things I did as Secretary of State was appoint the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), as victims Minister so that there is someone in Government who is a champion for that cause and who will work with the next victims’ commissioner to ensure that we have a system that is as responsive as we can possibly make it.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
My understanding is that the Law Society and the Family Law Bar Association have come out in opposition to the fixing of a time limit for courts to conclude care cases, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to remind family lawyers, and indeed judges, that the implementation of a 26-week time limit remains a core policy objective and that lawyers should be preparing now to meet those targets?
Chris Grayling
I can assure my hon. Friend that we have made no changes to the plans. We always listen carefully to outside bodies, but no changes have been made and we are not considering making any.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
In view of the Qatada decision, has the Secretary of State considered requiring courts to take into account the likely cost to the public purse of their bail decisions, particularly in serious and high-risk cases?
Chris Grayling
I am happy to consider that matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In view of what the Secretary of State has rightly said about the case of Abu Qatada, a prominent supporter of al-Qaeda, will he say a word or two about an opponent of al-Qaeda, namely the special forces sergeant who has been sentenced to an 18-month term of military detention for having kept a pistol that was presented to him in gratitude for his services by the Iraqi special forces? I realise that court martial procedures might be outside my right hon. Friend’s immediate area of responsibility, but will he reflect public concern over that very serious matter?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of the public concern. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment about an individual case, and of course courts-martial fall under the remit of the Ministry of Defence. However, I would always hope that common sense will lie at the heart of every judicial decision in this country.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Will the Minister give an indication of the cut-off date for claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Victims of crime and their representatives need to know that date. Will it be Friday 23 November? Will it be Monday 26 November?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Minister have an assessment of how curfew orders have been working since their hours and length were increased last year?
Jeremy Wright
I will have to check to be certain, but I think that the changes made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have not yet come into force. However, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the opportunity for us to have available not only more hours spent under curfew but curfew orders that last for a longer time. In addition to new technology that will enable us better to monitor offenders, this can be a very effective means of keeping track of those who have committed offences.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does the Lord Chancellor recall that in the reign of Henry VIII it was made high treason to take an appeal outside this kingdom? Has not the time come for this Parliament once more to legislate to prohibit appeals to foreign courts and to prohibit the judgments of foreign courts leading our judiciary?
Chris Grayling
I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. While I may not agree with every word he says, he will know that I have some sympathy with his frustration about international courts and the rulings that they make. That is why I am very clear that, in relation to the European Court of Human Rights, further reform is necessary.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
My constituent Jermaine Sheerin and his family are suffering a cycle of despair since he was convicted and received an indeterminate public protection sentence in 2007. He remains in prison, and sometimes in hospital, at risk of suicide. The Government have said that IPP sentences are wrong, so why are people who are currently serving them left in limbo?
Chris Grayling
It is difficult for me to comment on the individual case, because that is a matter for the probation authorities. We have put in place a package of longer sentences for more serious offenders. In relation to those who are still in prison on an indeterminate sentence, they will of course have to submit to the procedures that were law at the time. It is particularly important for us to know that they are safe to be released before they are released.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Stafford prison was built in 1794 and is one of the cheapest prisons in the country to run. Will my hon. Friend visit Stafford with builders of new prisons to see how it is done?
Jeremy Wright
I am sure that those responsible for the building of prisons will always understand that they have more to learn. We all want to learn whatever lessons we can from the excellent construction of Victorian prisons, in particular, as I have discovered in my time touring the estate.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In London, a third of people sent to prison for criminal offences are foreign nationals, yet we have the scandalous position whereby they can apply for British citizenship, while no attempt is made for them to serve their sentences in their countries of origin. What is my hon. Friend doing to remedy this, particularly given that many of those who are finally freed after their prison sentences are then free to come and go?
Jeremy Wright
I do not think it is fair to say that nothing is being done about ensuring that foreign national offenders leave the country. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are making considerable efforts to negotiate compulsory prison transfer agreements so that these prisoners do not have the choice of staying in this country. We are also working as closely as we can with the Home Office to ensure that people who have completed sentences leave this country as soon as possible.
Petition
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to table this petition on behalf of my constituents, asking the House of Commons to urge the Government to examine seriously the feasibility of bringing the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington. The petitioners and I believe that would help attract businesses to the area and help my constituents to travel to work in other parts of the region. They pay for the Metro through their council tax but they do not get the full benefit of it. This petition is accompanied by the names of 417 people who have signed a petition along the same lines as that collected by Sun FM.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West constituency and the surrounding areas,
Declares that there are inadequate public transport links for residents in Washington to access the rest of the Tyne and Wear area, increasing reliance on personal transport and reducing employment and economic opportunities for the town and its residents.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to seriously explore the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to the town of Washington utilising the old Leamside railway line.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001131]
NHS Commissioning Board (Mandate)
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the publication of the Government’s first mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board.
The NHS is the country’s most precious creation. We are all immensely proud of the NHS and the people who make it what it is—a service that last year delivered half a million more outpatient appointments, nearly 1 million more A and E attendances and 1.5 million more diagnostic tests than the year this Government came into office; and it is doing so while meeting waiting time targets, reducing hospital-acquired infections and virtually eliminating mixed-sex wards. The essence of the NHS is its values: universal and comprehensive health care that is free and based on need and not the ability to pay.
Today I am proud to publish the first ever mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. From now on, Ministers will set the priorities for the NHS, but for the first time, local doctors and clinical staff will have the operational freedom to implement those priorities using their own judgment as to the best way to improve health outcomes for the people they look after. That independence comes with a responsibility to work with colleagues in local authorities and beyond, to engage with local communities to create a genuinely integrated system across health and social care that is built around the needs of individual people.
The mandate makes clear my responsibility, as Secretary of State for Health, to uphold and defend the enduring values that make the NHS part of what it is to be British. It also sets out my priorities for the NHS Commissioning Board over the next two years and beyond, linked closely to the NHS outcomes framework, the latest version of which I am also publishing today.
The priorities set out in the mandate closely reflect the four key priorities I have identified to Parliament as my own. Let me take each of them in turn. My first priority is to reduce avoidable mortality rates for the major killer diseases, where despite increases in life expectancy our survival rates are still below the European average in too many areas. If our mortality rates were level with the best in Europe, we could save as many as 20,000 lives every year—20,000 personal tragedies that could be avoided, but are not. It cannot be right that we are below average for cancer survival rates, that for respiratory diseases we are the worst in the EU 15, or that our performance on liver disease is getting worse, not better. Today I call on the NHS Commissioning Board, working with Public Health England, local government, clinical commissioning groups and others, to begin a concerted effort to bring down avoidable mortality rates in this country.
The mandate asks the board to make measurable progress to improve early diagnosis, giving more people quicker access to the right drugs and treatment where they need it; to reduce the wide and unacceptable variation between different parts of the country, both in terms of inequality of health outcomes and variability of performance by NHS trusts; and to support a renewed focus on prevention, working with local authority partners to help people quit smoking, drink less, eat better and exercise more.
My second priority is to build a health and care system where the quality of a person’s care is valued as highly as the quality of their treatment. When we place ourselves in the hands of others, we should be confident that we will be treated well, our dignity respected and that that will be the case regardless of our age or mental state, or whether we are in a hospital, a care home or our own home. For most people, most of the time, that is already the case, but too often it is not. The appalling revelations from places such as Mid Staffs and Winterbourne View bring home the desperate need for change. We must go beyond the enforcement of minimum standards. We must raise our game so that the NHS is recognised globally for its commitment to the highest standards of care for all, just as it is recognised for its commitment to the highest standards of treatment for all.
The mandate asks the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that GP-led commissioning groups work with others so that vulnerable people, particularly those with dementia, learning disabilities and autism, receive safe, appropriate, high-quality care. It also asks the board to improve standards of care during pregnancy and in the early years of children’s lives. This will include offering women the greatest possible choice over how they give birth, giving every woman a named midwife who will be responsible for them both before and after the birth, to reduce the incidence and impact of post-natal depression through early diagnosis and better intervention and support.
The mandate asks the board to measure and understand how people really feel about their care through the new friends and family test, asking patients whether they would recommend the care they receive to their friends or family. The test will cover hospital and maternity services in 2013, with other parts of the NHS following soon after. The mandate also asks the board to drive up standards of care by championing a transparency revolution within the NHS. This will make us the first country in the world to publish comparative information on performance throughout the health-care system, including on clinical commissioning groups, local councils, providers of care and consultant-led teams. Mental health, long the poor relation, must have parity with physical health. The mandate asks the board to make clear progress in rectifying that, particularly by looking at waiting times and rolling out the programme of improved access to psychological therapies.
My third priority is to improve dramatically care for the third of people in England who live with a long-term condition such as asthma, diabetes or epilepsy. As a group, they account for more than half of GP appointments and nearly three quarters of hospital admissions. That has a huge impact on the individuals concerned—an impact that can be compounded by the way in which they are dealt with by the NHS. We need to do better.
The mandate therefore asks the board to help those who rely heavily on the NHS by harnessing the power of the technology revolution. Labour’s NHS IT projects failed, wasting billions, but we must not allow that failure to blind us to how technology can transform treatment and care throughout the system. I am today asking the board to ensure, by 2015, that all NHS patients in England can access their GP records online; that, in at least parts of the country, those records are integrated with other medical records across the health and social care system, so that a single record can follow a patient seamlessly from ambulance to hospital, to GP clinic and to their own home; and that everyone can book GP appointments and order repeat prescriptions online, as well as contact their GP by e-mail. I am also asking that significant progress be made towards ensuring that 3 million people with long-term conditions benefit from telehealth and telecare by 2017.
With respect to people with long-term conditions, the mandate also asks the board to ensure, by 2015, that more people have the knowledge and skills to control their own care, and that carers have the information and advice that they need about the support that is available to them, including respite care.
My final priority is care for older people, specifically those with dementia. Already, one in three people over the age of 65 lives with dementia. Shockingly, even though the right medicines can make a huge difference to people’s quality of life and that of their families, we diagnose fewer than half of those with the condition. I want the diagnosis, treatment and care for people with dementia to be world-leading. The mandate therefore asks the NHS Commissioning Board to make significant progress in improving dementia diagnosis rates and to ensure that the best treatment and care is available to everyone, wherever they live. We also want hospitals, and indeed all NHS organisations, to make significant progress in becoming dementia-aware and dementia-friendly environments.
The mandate covers other important areas of NHS performance, including research, partnership working, the armed forces covenant and better health services for those in prison, especially at the point when they are integrated back into the community. The mandate also sets the NHS Commissioning Board’s annual revenue budget, which for 2013-14 will be £95.6 billion, with a capital budget of £200 million. An important objective for the board is therefore to ensure good financial management, as well as unprecedented and sustainable improvements in value for money across the NHS.
We are the first country in the world to set out our ambitions for our health service in a short, concise document that is centred around patients. Its clarity and brevity will help bring accountability, transparency and stability to the NHS. The last Government sent endless instructions to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, constantly bombarding them with new targets, new directions and new priorities, and drowning the NHS in red tape and bureaucracy. In stark contrast, the mandate is just 28 pages long. It signals the end of top-down political micro-management of the NHS—an approach that failed to get the best treatment for patients and the best value for taxpayers. The mandate demands much closer integration between secondary and primary care, and between the NHS and social care. It requires a new style of leadership from the NHS, with local doctors and nurses free to innovate in the way that they commission care. I look to the board to develop their leadership skills so that they can do that. The mandate will make it easier for Ministers to hold the health and care system to account, and easier for Parliament to hold Ministers to account for their stewardship of the system. It is a historic step for the NHS, and I commend the statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has just reeled off an impressive wish list, but people across the NHS will be asking a simple question: how on earth can he ask the NHS to do more, when we learn today that 61,000 jobs have been lost or are at risk in the NHS? His statements are dangerously at odds with the reality on the ground and risk raising unrealistic expectations. Across England, services are under severe pressure with ambulances queuing outside A and E, patients left on trolleys in corridors for hours on end, and increasing numbers of A and E and ward closures. No wonder nurses’ leaders today warn that the NHS is “sleepwalking into a crisis.” To listen to the Secretary of State, however, it is as if none of that is happening.
A toxic mix of reorganisation and real-terms cuts risks plunging the NHS into a tailspin. Today, people will have been hoping for a mandate for common sense to restore sanity to an NHS that is in danger of losing the plot, and for instructions to protect the front line. Well, they will have been disappointed.
The Secretary of State glosses over finance, but let me give the House the facts. He and his predecessor promised to reinvest all efficiency savings in the NHS front line—[Interruption.] Yes, they say, yet we learn that £3 billion of NHS money has been swiped back by the Treasury. When will the Secretary of State stand up to the Treasury and keep promises that the Government have made to the NHS? While the NHS front line takes a battering, the Government keep throwing money at a back-office reorganisation that nobody wanted. A full £1 billion has been spent on redundancy packages for managers, more than 1,000 of whom have received six-figure payouts while 6,000 nurses get P45s. That is the scandalous reality of the coalition Government NHS.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that a single payoff of £324,000 was made to the former chief executive of NHS Bolton? How would he care to justify that to NHS staff in Bolton who are losing their jobs? There could be no clearer illustration of a Government whose priorities are completely wrong.
Let me turn to some of the specific points set out by the Secretary of State. First, he makes welcome commitments on care for older people. If that is his priority, however, why are there no instructions in this mandate to stop commissioners from imposing restrictions on essential operations for older people? Last year, there were 12,000 fewer cataract operations than in 2009-10. Older people were told that they could have an operation in one eye but not in two. The Government boast about shorter waiting lists, but that is because people cannot get on those lists in the first place. A postcode lottery is running riot and there is nothing in this mandate to stop it.
The Secretary of State’s promises on dementia will be nothing more than hollow words until he faces up to the crisis in council budgets for adult social care. Across England, older people and carers are facing a desperate struggle as council services such as home helps are cut to the bone. Millions of people are facing ever higher care charges—cruel coalition dementia taxes—as councils are forced to put up the cost of meals on wheels and other services. If the Secretary of State really wants to help people with dementia, when will he act to stop this scandal?
Let me turn to mortality rates. Over the past decade, the deaths from heart attacks fell by 50% in men and 53% in women, and the NHS achieved the biggest drop in cancer deaths among the 10 most developed nations. It is widely accepted that the clinical networks established by the previous Government played a significant role in that success. Indeed, the NHS medical director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, called them “an NHS success story”. Why, then, is the Secretary of State proceeding with brutal cuts to cancer, heart and stroke networks? Surely the best way to meet the ambitions he has set out is to build on that track record of success, not destroy it.
The Secretary of State promises to implement the Labour amendment to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to ensure “parity of esteem” between physical and mental health. However, the opposite is happening as the NHS reverts to its default position and places mental health services first in line for cuts. Will he confirm that mental health spending was cut in real terms last year, and what will he do to reverse that? He says he wants a transparency revolution, but across the country local people are being shut out of crucial decisions affecting local NHS services. If he believes in “No decision about me without me,” will he today commit to consult Greater Manchester patients with long-term conditions on whether they want ambulance services to be run by a bus company? Will he act to stop details of contracts under his “any qualified provider” regime from being kept secret from local people under “commercial confidentiality”? The truth is that patients are being shut out as his friends in the private sector fill their boots.
In the weekend’s papers, this mandate was called the first contract with the NHS—the new language of the coalition NHS, in which competition and contracts replace care and compassion. Yes, the Secretary of State has today published a new mandate, but we needed a change of direction. The Government have put the NHS on a fast track to fragmentation. Today, they have unfairly and unrealistically raised expectations on a battered NHS, thinking they have cleverly contracted out responsibility to the national Commissioning Board. I have news for them. The chaos in the NHS starts and ends with the guilty men and women on the Government Benches. We will hound them and hold them to account for the damage they are doing.
Mr Hunt
This is an incredibly important document for the NHS, and I think that we were all expecting a bit more than the same old hollow rhetoric from the right hon. Gentleman.
There could be no greater commitment to the NHS than to protect its budget at a time of unprecedented austerity. This Government have protected the NHS budget; the right hon. Gentleman said that that would be irresponsible. The Government take action; he uses words. The picture he paints of the NHS in crisis is not the picture recognised by thousands of doctors and nurses up and down the country. Of course, with an ageing population, the NHS is doing more than ever before. Nearly 1 million more people every year are in A and E than when he was Health Secretary, but it is meeting all its waiting times targets and has virtually eliminated mixed-sex wards, and hospital-acquired infections are going down. This NHS is performing exceptionally well.
Let me address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. On finance, in the figures he gave, I think he was alluding to the fact that, in the first year the coalition was in power, it worked to Labour’s NHS budgets. There was an underspend in that year, as there was in each of the last four years that Labour was in control. In three of those four years, the underspend was higher than it was when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was Health Secretary. Let us talk about redundancy payments. The reforms introduced by my right hon. Friend will save the NHS—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate that there are very strong feelings on these matters, but Opposition Front Benchers must not shout at the Secretary of State as he is responding to questions. He must be heard. Everybody will have a chance—Members can rely upon me to ensure that—but the Secretary of State must be heard.
Mr Hunt
The redundancies in management and administration will save the NHS £1.5 billion every year—£1.5 billion that can be spent on the front line. We should compare that with the £1.6 billion the NHS must spend every year to deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s disastrous private finance initiative policies that left the NHS with £73 billion of debt overhang.
Let us talk about clinical networks, which are extremely important. We have four clinical networks—for cardio, cancer, maternity and mental health—and they will continue. The budget that the networks are using is increasing and not decreasing under the Commissioning Board.
The right hon. Gentleman said that ambulance services in Manchester would be run by a private bus company. I am sure the House will be interested to know who the Health Minister was when the guidelines that allow private bus companies to bid to run ambulance services were drawn up. It was the right hon. Gentleman. He was in post when that happened.
The right hon. Gentleman describes the mandate as a wish list. He should tell that to the 570,000 people who have dementia, for whom Government Members want to do a better job. He should tell it to people who suffer from cancer. They have below-average European survival rates, but we want them to have the best survival rates in Europe. He should tell it to the families and carers of people who are worried about the level of care they receive in certain parts of the system.
Government Members are determined to aim high for our NHS, because we believe in it. We believe it is doing incredibly well in difficult circumstances, but it can do even better. The right hon. Gentleman should also want an ambitious NHS. Just because he did not have those ambitions when he was Health Secretary does not mean that the Government should not aim high to make our NHS the best in the world.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for my inability to control modern technology.
Does my right hon. Friend think it striking that, when he presents the first mandate of the NHS Commissioning Board to the House of Commons, we hear a lot of synthetic rhetoric from the Opposition Front Bench, but not a single disagreement with any one of his propositions from the Dispatch Box or in the mandate? Does that not demonstrate—this has always been the Conservative case—that there is a shared commitment to the ideals of the NHS, and that the difference is our ability to deliver it effectively?
Mr Hunt
I hope my right hon. Friend is right that there is agreement on the goals in the mandate, because they have been drawn up after extensive consultation with the people of this country and are important priorities, particularly as we grapple with an ageing society. I agree with him that it does not the help the NHS to descend to the rhetoric we heard from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). There is a very important and legitimate debate about the right way to achieve shared goals. Government Members do not believe the right way is through performance management from the Department of Health and trying to echo out every part of the system. We believe the right way is to empower local GP-led groups to make changes on the ground. That is at the heart of the reforms.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I can understand the Secretary of State’s desire to give operational freedom to people in each locality, and his desire, as he says in his document, to reduce the inequalities of treatment between one area and another, but how does he intend to reconcile those two objectives?
Mr Hunt
The approach the reforms take is this: when there are inequalities in treatment, and when one hospital is particularly good at certain operations and another hospital is not as good, the best way to drive up performance is to make that information available in a way that has never happened before. More than anything, peer review drives the NHS. A very important part of the programme will be to roll out plans similar to those we have rolled out for cardiothoracic surgery, for which a performance comparison by consultant team, not just by hospital, has led to a dramatic improvement in survival rates from heart operations. We need to roll that out across many other disciplines. We also need to be able to compare local GP-led group with local GP-led group, and local authority with local authority. That will be a far more effective way of driving change than the old top-down way. That was tried under different Governments many times and in many ways, but it was never as successful as it was meant to be.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I welcome the statement, and particularly the actions that are being taken to deliver parity of esteem between physical and mental health, and to drive improvements on dementia. Those two things are linked by the common frustration of family carers, who feel that their voices are not always heard or understood within the NHS, and that there is too much variation in this country when it comes to identifying carers and ensuring that they get access to the breaks they so often need. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the mandate will ensure that people who need breaks get them before they have a breakdown?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he did at the Department, which is widely recognised on both sides of the House. He is right to talk about the critical role of carers. We have spoken a lot today about dementia. Dementia puts huge pressure on partners of the people affected. Very often, because we do not give the support we need to give at an early stage, people with dementia end up having to go to residential homes, whereas with that support, they would be able to stay at home happily for much longer. It is a critical issue. I hope he will be pleased to see in the section on long-term conditions explicit mention of the role of carers. We will follow the matter closely as the NHS Board implements at a local level the support he mentions.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
My constituent Michael Wade was wrongly refused surgery for a life-threatening condition. What in the mandate improves patients’ rights, or will they have to continue to have to rely on MPs and campaigning local newspapers?
Mr Hunt
Any such examples are totally unacceptable. The rights that people have to the treatment they need clinically are enshrined in the NHS constitution. There will always be a need for MPs and other campaigners to highlight problems in the system, but we hope to make it much easier by exposing unacceptably low levels of clinical care much earlier than happens currently. As a result of the changes in the next two years we will see the NHS becoming the most transparent health care system of any in the world, which we hope will enable us to identify failures before they lead to the kind of tragedy the right hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I understand that the Government are adding the one and five-year indicators for all cancers to existing indicators in the NHS outcomes framework. That is very welcome. It will particularly help those with rarer cancers, and the all-party group on cancer has long lobbied for it. Will the Government work towards ensuring that the commissioning outcomes framework, which measures clinical commissioning groups, mirrors those one and five-year indicators, which are terribly important in encouraging earlier diagnosis so that we have coherent policies at the national and local level?
Mr Hunt
May I thank my hon. Friend for his work campaigning on cancer? He is absolutely right. We want to make sure that we pick up rarer cancers, so we are moving towards a composite indicator for cancers with the one and five-year measures. He is absolutely right that, properly to drive improvement, we need to compare not just hospital and consultant-led teams, but local GP-led commissioning groups, so that where there are successful outcomes everyone knows that. To get that comparison to work, we have to ensure that we compare the demographics. Part of the work we are doing is to understand how we can meaningfully compare CCGs, so that the public can truly understand who is doing best and who needs to do better.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State talks about operational independence on the ground for doctors and CCGs. He did not mention anything in his statement about sexual health care. One issue that we have been struggling with for some time in Walthamstow is the limitations of doctors who have decided to deny women even the most basic contraceptive services. We are still struggling with how the new mandate and new services will deliver them. Will the Secretary of State meet me and women from Walthamstow to discuss the issue, so that we can be confident that the changes will not lead to a further deterioration in sexual health care services across the country?
Mr Hunt
We will publish a sexual health strategy at the end of this year that will look at variation in services across the country and at the kind of problems the hon. Lady raises. It will be led by the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue further.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s statement will be widely welcomed, especially his emphasis on an integrated system based on the needs of people. Does he not agree, however, that there is far too little use of complementary medicine outside private health care, and that greater use of herbal medicine, acupuncture and the much under-utilised resource in this country of homeopathic medicine, homeopathic doctors and the Society of Homeopaths, would be a good thing? Seventy per cent. of pregnant women in France use homeopathic medicine.
Mr Hunt
There are parts of the country where acupuncture is available on the NHS. This will be clinically led. It needs to be driven by the science, but where there is evidence, and where local doctors think that it would be the best clinical outcome for their patients, that is what they are able to do.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
As a customer of the national health service, I was lucky enough to have cancer treatment and a heart bypass in those days—halcyon days, almost, by comparison—when 80,000 nurses and 20,000 doctors were recruited, and the money increased from £33 billion to well over £100 billion. Does the Secretary of State know that the optimistic outlook that existed in those days has now been replaced by a climate of fear? That is what I find at the sharp end in hospitals when I go to see the same people I met at the end of the last century. What I say to you is that the figures might sound grand and all the rest of it, but when you start sacking 60,000 people in the national health service, set against a background of elderly people living longer—people like me who need the treatment—the net result will be a catastrophe and not those halcyon days of yesteryear.
Mr Hunt
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that we have 17,000 fewer managers than when his party was in power. We also have 3,500 more doctors and there are more clinical staff in the NHS today than when his party left office, so I think the record speaks for itself. There is not a climate of fear—I reject that. There is an understanding that the NHS is under a lot of pressure, with an ageing population and more people using and needing its services every year. That is why today’s package is so important to support the NHS in delivering what the public need.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
At long last, the NHS will be operationally independent, and genuinely clinically led. I welcome the mandate: it is an excellent and ambitious target for the NHS. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that, in these challenging times, efficiencies made in the NHS will be genuinely reinvested in patient services?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend, as a GP, will recognise from the mandate that a lot of the improvements that we need in the NHS are in primary care. The budget for the NHS is protected, but demand for services is going up, so we need to make these changes. I will give her one example where I think that this is particularly important. The number of hours it will save GPs if the majority of prescriptions are ordered online, which does not happen at the moment, could transform life for more than 8,000 GP surgeries up and down the country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
One of the great problems the NHS has is the millstone of private finance initiative costs that are so damaging to so many hospitals. The other millstone is the huge profit made by the private sector on contracted out and privatised services. Is it not time for the Government to give a clear directive to the NHS to employ its staff to deliver its services and borrow money in the traditional way to build new facilities, so that public money goes into a public service and the public are not lining the pockets of the banks and private health providers instead?
Mr Hunt
I hope we can move beyond the debate about public good, private bad and private good, public bad that has dogged the NHS for many years. I believe there is a role for the independent sector and the voluntary sector. Of course, the primary role will be for the traditional NHS. However, when the private and voluntary sectors are used will not be a matter not for politicians or parties; but for local doctors on the ground. I think that in the vast majority of cases, they will want to use and contract with traditional NHS services, but it is important that they have the choice to do what is in the interests of the patients for whom they are responsible.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
For too many years in my Crawley constituency health decisions were made by people who were nowhere near that location. I am delighted that under this Government decisions are being returned to local clinicians and local people. We have seen results already—the local CCG has started a dementia pilot with money from the Department of Health. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating that kind of vision, both in Crawley and elsewhere?
Mr Hunt
I am more than happy to do that, because when it comes to conditions such as dementia there is no one right solution, and doctors’ surgeries and hospitals will have different approaches in different parts of the country. We want everyone to take ownership of the problem. I hope that what is happening in Crawley will be noticed by other parts of the country, so that we can spread best practice everywhere. That is the point—we want to allow innovation to happen in a way that has never happened before.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
This is a hugely significant occasion. It is the one opportunity that Parliament will have to call the Secretary of State to account for the priorities that he sets for the NHS Commissioning Board, so may I refer him to his pledge to improve cancer outcomes? Given that he made a pledge to the House on 23 October to make available to anybody who required it innovative radiotherapy, how does that square with giving back to the Treasury £3,000 million that could otherwise be used to buy advanced and innovative radiotherapy equipment?
Mr Hunt
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, as I reminded the right hon. Member for Leigh, that for the four years that preceded this Government, there were underspends, including when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary, and in three of those four years the underspend was higher than it was in our first year in office. But we do want innovative cancer treatments to be available. That is why we introduced, among other things, the cancer drugs fund, which was not introduced by his Government and which has transformed the lives of thousands of cancer sufferers.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I welcome the statement, particularly the use of IT and online resources, but how will we avoid the previous errors of Connecting for Health and its huge costs?
Mr Hunt
That is a very important question. We are going to avoid that because I will not be signing any big national IT contracts. The initiative will be locally led and locally driven. Guidelines will be laid down to make sure that all the systems developed in different parts of the country are inter-operable. That is very important, but we will not have any grand plans nor will there be a big single database, so we can thereby avoid some of the problems. We must none the less be prepared to grasp what technology changes can mean for the NHS, just as they do for the rest of society.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On 23 October I raised with the Secretary of State unacceptable delays of two and a half hours for the transfer of patients from ambulances to James Cook University hospital accident and emergency in Middlesbrough on 27 September. Last Thursday night for one hour and last Friday morning for one hour, owing to bed pressures, patients in ambulances were diverted from James Cook to North Tees hospital, and 14 planned operations were cancelled the same Friday and the following Saturday. Is not the mandate completely dependent on whether the Secretary of State is in control of the remit of his Department?
Mr Hunt
The mandate makes it clear that waiting times targets must be met. That is a very important part of the mandate. I continue to be extremely concerned by what the hon. Gentleman tells me about what is happening in his constituency, and I look to his local NHS to come up with a sustainable, rapid solution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As the Secretary of State saw for himself when he visited Kettering general hospital recently, the NHS is very good at treating people but perhaps is not quite as good at preventing people from getting ill. Given that prevention is better than cure and often less expensive, what is there in this mandate that will encourage up-front health care before patients are admitted to hospital?
Mr Hunt
There is something critically important in the mandate that will do that, which is that by making the NHS operationally independent we are giving commissioning responsibilities to local GP-led groups for the first time, and GPs understand the importance not just of primary care but of prevention. So I think we will see much more innovation, along with the co-operation that the NHS has with local authorities and the new health and wellbeing boards, to make sure that there is a much bigger focus on prevention than there has been in the past.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that if there is an underspend in the NHS Commissioning Board financial allocation, that will stay in the NHS and not go back to the Treasury?
Mr Hunt
As the hon. Lady knows, we manage our finances extremely carefully but we do have underspends. We try to minimise them and there has been a real-terms growth in spending—actual money spent in the NHS, compared with Labour’s plans. In the first year of the review there was a real-terms increase and we will continue to manage NHS finances with a commitment to protecting the budget, which did not ever happen when the right hon. Member for Leigh was in post.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s priority to reduce the disparity in health outcomes, not just across the country but across local areas. Will he reassure me that the mandate, delivered in partnership with local health and wellbeing boards and local GPs, will end the scandal—Labour’s legacy—that from the west of the borough of Enfield to the east, the age mortality rates decrease by more than 10 years?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. That is why, at the heart of the mandate, is an information revolution so that the public can understand exactly how well different parts of the system work, and so that we create the right pressures on the system to improve where performance is poor. I agree that the central, top-down structures that we had before did not allow that to happen. If we had cut the budget, as the Opposition wanted, it would have been even more difficult now.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Tomorrow, as the Secretary of State knows, is world diabetes day. I discovered that I had diabetes only because of a chance visit to my local GP. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about including diabetes in his mandate, but will he mandate the local health authority to test all its patients? Today marks the start of the Hindu new year—Diwali. In this new year statement that he is making today, will he ensure that everyone is tested for diabetes in their local practice?
Mr Hunt
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we are losing 24,000 people unnecessarily every year by not properly recognising the symptoms of diabetes. That is incredibly important. We have made it clear that reducing mortality rates—preventing avoidable mortality—is a major priority of this Government, so I expect this to be a key priority for GP practices and for local authorities throughout the country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today and the mandate, and note that it is based on the NHS constitution, which states that it is founded on a common set of principles and values. So in a week when GPs have become millionaires by selling off their interests in parts of the NHS, may I suggest a further test, beyond the friends and family test—a patients before profit test? Will that be introduced?
Mr Hunt
The outcome that we want is for more patients to live longer and more healthily than ever before. The right thing for me to specify in the mandate is that we want the NHS to deliver improved patient outcomes. Sometimes that will involve using the independent sector and the voluntary sector, but in the vast majority of cases it will mean working within the traditional NHS. If we deliver those improved outcomes, we will be doing the right thing by patients throughout the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Minister, may I thank you for your statement on the mandate and in particular your reference to the armed forces covenant? Mental health has been the poor relation for too long. The statement says that mental health will be elevated to parity with physical health. Can the Minister explain how those who have fought in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular and who have seen the awfulness and the brutality of war will be helped through the mandate?
Mr Speaker
Order. I always listen extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who has asked a very serious question. I hope he will take it in the right spirit if I say that my medium-term ambition is to persuade him to cease to use the word “you” in asking questions in the House. But his question has been heard and it will now be answered.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may know that there is a mental health helpline specifically for veterans because we recognise the importance of this decision. He will also have seen from the mandate that mental health is mentioned in virtually every part of it, whether in the context of avoiding mortality from extreme mental illness or helping people with long-term conditions, which would also cover post-traumatic stress disorder.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly places survival rates at the top of his agenda and identifies the importance of early diagnosis. When it comes to breast screening, the switch to digital is critical in spotting cancer early. Does he agree that the NHS must move faster in making that switch to digital?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely agree. That can be hugely transformational in terms of patient outcomes. Many patients would be astonished to know that a full medical record is not available to consultants in hospitals before they operate on them. We need to put that right because it could transform the decisions that surgeons take in extreme cases. So my hon. Friend is right, and we must press on with this very fast.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the whole Government are keen to deliver public services using the internet and online. He mentioned in particular people with long-term conditions being able to communicate with their doctors online. The Department for Work and Pensions has found that 6.5 million people who will be entitled to universal credit have never used a computer. Has he any knowledge at all of how many of those with long-term conditions are computer literate?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s objectives, particularly on the quality of care and—I would add—patient safety, which is so important. With an ageing population—a 50% increase in the number of over-60s by 2045 has been predicted—equality of access will require most clinical services to be close at hand. How does he expect to hold the board to account over its duty to reduce inequalities of access?
Mr Hunt
The waiting time targets are among the board’s responsibilities under the mandate. Having care close to home is a key priority for many patients, often because they think that the quality of care will be better, if it is at a local hospital or—even better—in their own home. One major change resulting from the increased role for GPs under the mandate will be much better support for domiciliary care, which will enable people to live at home for longer.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The tension between the postcode lottery and local commissioning has been discussed, but of paramount importance is how the budgets filter down to the various groups. The Secretary of State just said that funding to the cancer, stroke and heart networks will increase, yet a paper from the NHS Commissioning Board talks about funding cuts from £18 million to £10 million. I am afraid that the veracity of his figures is often challenged. Would he like to put the record straight on the figures?
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In priority 4—dementia—the Secretary of State states that the NHS Commissioning Board is mandated to ensure that the best treatment and care are available to everyone, wherever they live. Can he guarantee that there will be no postcode lottery, and that people with dementia in Liverpool will get the same treatment as the best in the rest of the country?
Mr Hunt
There is an element of postcode lottery now—there is a huge and unacceptable variation in treatment throughout the country—but the structures we are putting in place have a much better chance of reducing that variation than what went before, which failed to reduce it.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I think we can all welcome the four stated priorities of the new mandate, not least in respect of cancer, mental health and dementia, and I recognise that the statement will have predictive implications for devolved policy making as well. Is the Secretary of State confident that the means and methodology are there to fulfil this mandate? Are resources sufficient and responsibilities sufficiently clear? Will this be workable in practice, or just a worthy presentation from a Minister?
Mr Hunt
The mandate sets some very high ambitions in challenging times, but those ambitions can help to reduce costs and make the NHS more sustainable. Embracing the technology revolution should mean that we give people better care, as should allowing clinicians more time to spend with patients and allowing nurses to spend more time with the people they are responsible for, but those things should also save the system money. There is not an either/or, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is very ambitious.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State’s commitment to parity of esteem for mental health services include a promise that under his watch spending on mental health services will not decline in proportion to spending on physical health services?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the purpose of such a mandate is not to set specific financial objectives but to set outcomes for patients, and then to let local professionals on the ground—doctors and nurses—decide how best to deliver them. The mandate is clear, however, that we want parity of esteem for mental health and to improve equality of access, which at the moment is much better for physical health than for mental health.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The stroke networks have been hugely successful at reducing mortality and inequalities of treatment in this country, yet their future is now in doubt, staff are being lost and their funding is not guaranteed. What can the Secretary of State do to assure those involved in stroke care that his mandate will ensure that they are properly funded and resourced?
Gas Market Fraud
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
My Department and the Treasury were informed on Friday afternoon that the Financial Services Authority had received allegations of manipulation of the UK gas market. As I said last night, I am extremely concerned about these allegations. Market abuse is always wrong, but, at a time when people and companies are struggling with high energy bills, the country would expect us to take firm action, if these allegations prove true, and we will.
These allegations of market manipulation are being taken very seriously. We will support the regulators taking whatever steps necessary to ensure that the full force of the law is applied, if they are true, so that any guilty parties are held to account. In the first instance, the FSA and Ofgem will consider these allegations. Ofgem has the lead responsibility for these physical markets, with the FSA leading on any associated financial market. Both regulators have already committed significant resources to doing this. I and my officials have been in close contact with both regulators over the weekend, and we continue to support them in their work in whatever way we can.
It is early days but the FSA and Ofgem are examining the evidence they received. Given that this evidence may be used in criminal and/or civil proceedings, however, it is important not to pre-empt the work of the FSA and Ofgem or their conclusions. At this stage, we encourage any individuals or companies to act on any concerns they have and to bring forward any evidence of market manipulation. People should know that the powers exist to protect the identity of whistleblowers, although in this instance the individual concerned has chosen to forgo his anonymity.
Ofgem and the FSA are market regulators, independent of Government and staffed by market experts. Together with the Office of Fair Trading, these organisations have a range of powers available to them, including the ability to act against the manipulation of financial markets, collusive activity and the abuse of strong market positions.
The Government have a strong record of providing regulators with the powers they need to tackle market abuse. Where regulators and others have identified gaps in their powers, we have acted quickly to address them. For example, the Government acted swiftly to tackle the attempted manipulation of LIBOR and EURIBOR by implementing in full the recommendations of the Wheatley review, including the statutory regulation of benchmark activities. We also responded to Ofgem’s request that we extend its powers to tackle abuses that take advantage of network constraints. The Government have also undertaken a wholesale review of how competition law is applied in the UK, ensuring that it is fit for purpose and can tackle collusion and abuse of strong market dominance, and so protect consumers.
The Government have also taken a leading role in the development of the EU regulations on wholesale energy markets integrity and transparency—often referred to as REMIT. Those prohibitions on insider trading and market manipulation came into force in December 2011, which will ensure that regulatory bodies across the EU can tackle such abuse in wholesale energy markets. The UK was already aiming to be one of the first countries to implement REMIT in full, and the Government have been working with Ofgem over the past few months on the detailed implementation of these powers. In case the existing wide-ranging powers to tackle market abuse and these new REMIT powers are insufficient, however, I have written to the FSA, Ofgem and the OFT, asking them to identify any remaining gaps in their powers to deal with allegations of this sort.
At this early stage in the investigation, it is not possible to understand what the impact on consumers, companies or markets might have been, if the allegations are proven to be true, but I can assure the House of our absolute determination to clamp down on any abuse that is uncovered, wherever it might be and by whomsoever it might have been committed. It is my job to protect consumers, not least the most vulnerable, who can suffer the most when markets are abused. For now, it is right and proper to allow the independent market regulators to proceed with their investigations, with our full support, and I commit to updating the House when we learn more.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The wholesale gas price makes up about half of the average consumer’s bill, and as we know, energy companies are quick to blame wholesale costs when they put up people’s bills. Therefore, any suggestion that the wholesale gas market has been manipulated is a serious allegation that needs a full and rapid investigation. As the Secretary of State has said, the Financial Services Authority and Ofgem are looking into those allegations.
On the investigation being undertaken by the FSA, let me ask him three clear questions. First, when did the FSA initiate its investigation, and if he was informed about the allegations on Friday, why did he not come to the House yesterday, instead of leaving the public to learn about them in the press? Secondly, can he provide the House with any more information about the investigation’s remit and terms of reference? Thirdly, when does he expect the FSA to report its findings?
Separately, I understand that Ofgem is also looking into allegations made by a price reporting agency about unusual trading behaviour on 28 September, which is the end of the gas financial year and a key benchmark for future prices. Can the Secretary of State confirm today whether Ofgem has launched a formal investigation into those allegations, and if so, how its investigation will be different from the one being conducted by the FSA? Can he also tell the House when Ofgem was first notified about the allegations and whether it informed his Department? Can he also say a little more about the role of the Office of Fair Trading ?
Whatever the outcome of the investigations, the truth is that the energy companies have been allowed to run their businesses in such a complicated way that it is almost impossible to know the true cost of energy. The allegations that have been made in the past 24 hours suggest deep structural problems with the way in which our market works and is regulated. That is why over the past year I have argued for radical reform of the energy market to make it more transparent and more competitive, as well as for the creation of a tough new regulator.
On the first point, does the Secretary of State agree that the main reason it is so difficult to work out the true cost of energy is that most energy is bought and sold through secret, back-room deals and that energy companies are allowed to generate power, buy it from themselves and sell it on to the public? Does he agree that, with the energy Bill due imminently, now is the time to force the energy companies to sell all the power they generate into an open pool, which anyone could bid to retail to the public? That would improve transparency, increase competition and put downward pressure on bills.
On the second point, if the existing regulation of the energy market was working properly, why has it taken a whistleblower to bring the allegations to light? When we last debated the energy market just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State defended the existing regulator, Ofgem, and said that my proposal to create a tough new regulator with a statutory duty to monitor the relationship between wholesale and retail prices would be
“very damaging to the interests of energy consumers”.—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 364.]
In light of these allegations, can he tell me today whether he still has confidence in Ofgem?
Energy bills have risen by more than £200 in the past two years and the latest round of price hikes will add another £100 this winter. Business as usual is not an option. Today’s allegations of price fixing in the gas market show that it is more important than ever that we reform Britain’s energy market to make it fairer and simpler, and create an energy market that the public can trust.
Mr Davey
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s response. Let me try to deal with all her questions.
I understand that the FSA was approached by The Guardian and heard the information from the whistleblower last week. My understanding is that the FSA will follow the normal remit for any such investigation, considering whether an offence has been committed once it has looked at the allegations and reviewed the evidence. Of course, we cannot give detailed timing for that, and I am surprised that the right hon. Lady expects me to do so. That is a matter for the independent regulatory bodies, as they go about their process in the proper way.
The right hon. Lady asked why I did not come to the House yesterday. The reason is that we have rules to protect whistleblowers. It would have been quite wrong for me to come to the House before the whistleblower had made their statement. I hope she accepts that. We were ready to come to the House, but we were waiting for the information to enter the public domain in the proper way, and I have come to the House in the first instance after that.
The right hon. Lady asked about Ofgem’s role. Ofgem is working jointly with the FSA and it is important that it does so, because we do not yet know, as it looks at the allegations, whether there has been a problem in the energy markets—the physical markets—or the financial markets. We do not know whether financial services regulations or other regulations will have to be used, so Ofgem is engaged, just as it should be, in working with its fellow regulators.
The right hon. Lady asked whether the OFT would be involved. Again, that will depend on the nature of the allegations as they are analysed, and whether there has been an abuse—a breach—of competition powers in some way. Ofgem has concurrent powers with the OFT, as the right hon. Lady knows, but the OFT has more experience in some areas, particularly in prosecuting cartel offences. However, these are early days and this is speculation. We do not yet know whether the OFT would be involved, but clearly it stands ready.
The right hon. Lady then talked about the pool. She has concerns about the lack of transparency in energy prices, particularly electricity prices, which she and I debated in the last Opposition day debate on the issue. I explained that her proposals for a pool would not sort out the problem of liquidity. It is our proposal to bring forward reserve powers in the energy Bill, in case Ofgem’s proposals on managing auctions—or whatever it ends up deciding on improving liquidity—do not work. However, we on the Government Benches are absolutely committed to extra liquidity and more transparency of pricing, because that will drive competition, which is clearly the best way forward.
The right hon. Lady continues to suggest that the pool is the answer. These are early days, so it is certainly not clear that a pool would have helped with these offences. However, I remind her that it was the previous Government who abolished the electricity pool, partly because Labour Ministers considered it to be open to market manipulation and therefore detrimental to consumers—so her proposals for a pool are even less appealing as a result of these allegations.
The right hon. Lady now invites me to support her proposal on Ofgem, but from my experience of working with Ofgem and the FSA over the weekend and this week, and of having my officials work with them and seeing them in action, I take completely the reverse point of view. She ought to withdraw her proposal and support the role of an independent regulator. Ofgem has extensive powers; we are adding to them. Ofgem has used those powers where it has felt it necessary. Disbanding Ofgem at the moment would not speed up the investigation or help consumers with their bills now, so I am afraid I am not tempted to take up that proposal from the right hon. Lady. It would be totally unacceptable if people were profiting from manipulating energy prices, so I believe the whole House should back these investigations.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a debate to follow, under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, on child sexual exploitation, which I can inform Members is significantly subscribed, so if colleagues are not to be disappointed now, there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. Can I have an assurance that if it is proved that there has been market manipulation, there might be some form of redress for people in fuel poverty in my constituency and others who may have suffered as a consequence?
Mr Davey
It is because of people in fuel poverty that we should take such allegations as seriously as we are taking them, although I should say to my hon. Friend—no doubt I shall say this to other hon. Members—that these are early days. We do not want to speculate on the exact nature of the offence or on whether it has been detrimental to individual consumers or companies, so I would guard against jumping to conclusions. However, she will know that if detriment to consumers can be proven, there are powers in competition law for different types of redress.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not agree that since the hedge funds and banks got involved in this market and it is no longer confined to the producers and distributors of gas, it has become nothing more than a speculative racket? Would he also acknowledge that the ultimate expression of a speculative racket is somebody trying to manipulate the market?
Mr Davey
The investigations will determine whether anyone has been involved in a racket. I will not prejudge those investigations, although the right hon. Gentleman seems to wish to do so. He is concerned about the role of people involved in hedging, but that can be quite important for a market, in that it can make it more liquid, which can reduce prices. I would counsel him against suggesting that we completely pull apart the liquidity of the gas market.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
These allegations could expose real abuse of hard-pressed families, but will the Secretary of State be wary of the Opposition’s call to break up Ofgem? As the NHS and the BBC might testify, reorganisation can sometimes make things worse, rather than better. The important thing is that the regulators take their time, reform the system if they have to, and put in place real lessons learned for the future protection of consumers.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely wrong to jump to conclusions until the regulators—in this case, the FSA and Ofgem—have had a chance to do their work. I really cannot see that a massive reorganisation would help at the moment. We need to ensure that the regulators have the powers that they need to do their job, and we will ensure that that happens.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I first raised the potential for benchmark price fixing with the FSA some weeks ago when it appeared before the parliamentary banking inquiry. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be appalling if, despite being able to fix the LIBOR issue because the FSA has the necessary powers, we lacked the powers to prevent price fixing in areas such as the energy and food markets? I would like to ask him to do two things. First, will he ensure that any gaps in the regulatory powers are filled, if necessary through amendments to the energy Bill? Secondly, will he ensure the maximum level of international co-operation on benchmark prices, which are often set globally?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right to say that, if we find that the regulator needs more powers, we will act. I have made that absolutely clear. He is also right to mention the issues arising from the Wheatley review and the LIBOR issue. We need to ensure that the price reference agencies, the benchmarks and the indices that are used extensively in a variety of financial and commodity markets are properly considered in the reviews. Martin Wheatley has made a number of recommendations, the European Commission has produced a consultation paper on these matters and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions is looking into them, so there is international work being done. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we must ensure that our domestic regulation and international regulation are able to tackle these issues.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Are the Government not in the curious position of rather wishing that the European regulation was already in force? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the penalties would be under the remit regulation? I guess that they would be far greater than those left by the Labour Government.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is right; this is an excellent EU regulation, on which we have been leading the way and which we believe has a great role to play. The regulation might not be relevant to these allegations or to the particular abuse, if abuse is found. I do not want to prejudge the investigations by Ofgem and the FSA, but he is right to say that the coalition Government are taking action to stiffen regulation in this area.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
If the allegations are true, it will mean that the hard-pressed energy consumer has suffered artificially high prices. Fining the energy companies would not be enough. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the consumer will benefit from reduced costs, and that if he does not have the powers to achieve that, he will get them?
Mr Davey
Again, we should not speculate. We do not know whether an offence has been committed, and we do not know what the implications of any such offence might be for individual consumers, for companies or for markets. We must not jump to conclusions but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), if it turns out that there has been detriment to consumers, there are powers to give them redress under existing law.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
LIBOR, oil markets and now gas: it is a depressing litany. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are a Government who believe in social responsibility and that, if market manipulation is proven, ignorance will be no excuse and that senior management—not just traders—should be held to account?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My constituents are becoming increasingly angry about the cost of living, about the rise in the cost of fuel and energy and, in particular, about the lack of Government action in getting a grip on the energy companies that have ripped them off. May I ask the Secretary of State one specific question? Before the whistleblower came to the attention of the Department, was any other information provided to suggest that this type of fraud was possible or going on?
Mr Davey
I am not aware of any such information. The first time I learned from the regulatory authorities about these allegations was on Friday afternoon, as I said in my statement. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government are taking a lot of action to help consumers with their electricity and gas bills, including through the warm home discount, which is helping 2 million of our most vulnerable citizens and taking £130 directly off the bills of 1 million of the lowest-income pensioners. We also have the green deal and the energy Bill, which will drive competition and ensure that we have competitive retail and wholesale energy markets.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
As Energy Action Scotland—a fuel poverty charity of which I am an honorary vice-president—has pointed out, our constituents are facing bills that have gone up on the basis of the wholesale market being a major contributor. They need to have confidence in the wholesale market. My right hon. Friend says that we cannot yet see the impact of these specific allegations, but does he acknowledge that it is important for the market that investors and consumers can put their trust in proper regulation?
Mr Davey
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely critical that markets are fair, because British consumers deserve fair markets. In my previous ministerial role at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I was charged with reviewing competition law. I was responsible for a lot of the reforms in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, because I believe that we need to ensure that our markets are working properly and in the public interest.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
How can the Secretary of State still have confidence in Ofgem when it has signally failed to force the energy companies to pass on price cuts to consumers? Our constituents are suffering badly as a result of that.
Mr Davey
I refer the hon. Lady to Ofgem’s “Retail Market Review”, which was published recently after a great deal of study. It contains a set of proposals for how we might reform tariffs. I commend the review to all right hon. and hon. Members. We are reading it in detail before we come forward with our own proposals to help customers around the country with their tariffs.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I accept that it is too early to speculate on the outcome of the investigations, but if the allegations are proven to be true, my constituents who struggle to pay their heating bills will be appalled and will expect to see large fines imposed. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether, in the case of each of the regulators involved, the fines would be returned to consumers or kept within the industry?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the moment, certainly so far as Ofgem is concerned, the fines do not go to the consumer. This Government have consulted on changing that, however, and we are making provisions in the forthcoming energy Bill to ensure that any fines would go to consumers if malpractice had been proven. That might not apply to whatever offence is found as a result of these investigations, but we are changing the law so that when an energy company does not play fair by a customer, the customer will benefit from the fines imposed.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State trumpets the work that the Government are doing to tackle abuses in the markets that affect consumers, yet just today we have found out that 5 million people are having to turn to legal loan sharks because of the Government’s failure to regulate the consumer credit market. Will he give me an assurance that there will be no delay in taking action in relation to that market, so that those who are now facing bills that push them further and further into debt can get some redress?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that consumer credit markets are regulated. I know she has been campaigning for a particular type of regulation and a particular type of credit, but it would be a caricature to say that consumer credit markets are not regulated at all. These markets are also regulated, and this Government have strengthened that regulation.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, if gas market fraud has occurred, the investigation identifies exactly who gave the order and who gave the instruction, because that person, in whatever company, is the person most guilty—and they most of all should have the book thrown at them?
Mr Davey
I share my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but I stress that it is up to the independent regulators to investigate in the way that the law prescribes. I do not think my hon. Friend would expect me to do the investigations myself. We create the legal framework, and it is under that framework that Ofgem, the FSA and, if necessary, the OFT conduct their work.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that he knew that the FSA had received allegations about the fixing of gas market prices on Friday afternoon, but rumours about it existed before that time. Will he say when Ofgem first became aware of those rumours and what action it took on them? Would he not expect Ofgem to have made his Department aware of those rumours prior to this issue coming to light after the whistleblower made his information available?
Mr Davey
Ofgem has a daily role to monitor energy markets and make sure that they operate properly. In that normal process, it encounters a number of allegations. These will not have been the first allegations that it has received. Ofgem does not announce every particular allegation; it has to go through a proper process. Now there appears to be some evidence backing these allegations, but the reason we have an independent regulator is to allow it to get on and do the investigation. I suggest that that is exactly what we should do.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
First LIBOR and now—potentially—this. Are there other indices at which we should be looking proactively without waiting for whistleblowers to suggest market abuse?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. It goes back to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The Wheatley review suggested that we had more work to do in this area—a view that is, I think, held around the world. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions has a broad level taskforce looking at this issue, seeing whether we need to do more on the different indices, benchmarks and price reporting agencies. The EU also has a consultation out at the moment. My hon. Friend is right that we need to look at this in the round, learn the lessons of LIBOR and other indices that might have been manipulated and ensure that we apply those lessons to other markets, too.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that lessons should be applied to other markets, but can we not have more urgency in the investigation? We do not want a long-running international investigation; we want to see action taken now, and in other markets as well, to ensure that the consumer is not being ripped off as they apparently have been in this area and in the financial services sector, too.
Mr Davey
Action is being taken. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the consultation put out by the European Commission. It has also been suggested that ESMA—the European Securities and Markets Authority—should take interim measures. I have to tell him that not just domestic regulators but international regulators are taking a broader look, which is the correct thing to do.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said that the allegations of market manipulation are being taken very seriously, but considering the substantial evidence of abuse, collusion among large companies and price manipulation, why have Ministers so far turned a blind eye to Britain’s big pub companies? Is it that the whistles that have been blown for eight years are just pitched too high for Ministers and civil servants?
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Given that Northern Ireland has the highest energy prices in the UK and that the allegations relate to manipulation in the UK gas market, will the investigations by the FSA and Ofgem extend to Northern Ireland?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Domestic energy consumers may have an electricity bill, may have a gas bill and may have both, but those who have electricity bills may not realise that an increasing proportion of our electricity is generated from gas-fired power stations. This country is increasingly reliant on gas, so this potential scandal extends far further than most of our constituents might realise.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That shows the importance of taking these allegations seriously, because were they proven true they would have such a wide application for people’s energy bills—and, if proven true, they would relate to and impact on consumer markets.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State recognise how wrong it will seem to the 800,000 people in fuel poverty in Scotland if they have been ripped off while speculators have benefited from lucrative derivatives contracts? Does that not make the case for a new energy regulator here at home and proper regulation of excessive speculation at G20 level?
Mr Davey
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if it turns out that abuses have been committed that have affected prices for his and my constituents’ energy bills, that is an extremely serious matter, and we want the full weight of the law and investigatory bodies to chase down those people responsible. I have to say, however, that I do not think that makes the case for a new regulatory body. We need to make sure that the existing regulatory bodies, which have very strong and wide-ranging powers which this Government have increased, can take the necessary measures and penalise people if they are proven to have committed an offence.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The biggest challenge facing many of our households today is the cost of energy, including, of course, gas prices. Tolerance of these costs depends absolutely on trust that the market is not rigged. Because manipulative behaviour in the market is so difficult to detect, punishment for illegal activity must be sufficiently severe to create real fear in the minds of potential law-breakers or criminals. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that anyone found guilty of manipulating the market will face the severest penalties—including, possibly, long jail sentences?
Mr Davey
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns that our constituents deserve markets that are fair, deliver competitive outcomes and keep prices as low as possible. He is absolutely right on that. Again, I am being asked to prejudge the outcome of the investigations, but I can say to him that if certain offences are proved to have been committed, very serious penalties are attached to them. If a cartel offence, for example, has been committed, it is a very serious one and it has a criminal sentence attached to it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State understand that his laconic performance today and his rather puny response to all this will serve only to anger our constituents more? When they have already had to put up with confusion pricing, excessive prices and, now, alleged market rigging, why does the right hon. Gentleman not show some energy, get tough and introduce a new regulator that can actually take some action?
Mr Davey
I am afraid that I am tempted to say that we are making amends for the failures of the last Government in this area. The hon. Gentleman talks about confusing tariffs, but the last Government took no action on them, and Ofgem—the regulator which, if I understand his question correctly, the hon. Gentleman wants to abolish—has put forward proposals to simplify and reduce the confusing number of tariffs, about which his party did nothing when in government.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Energy markets, financial markets, grocery markets and the pub market have turned out to be flawed markets rather than free markets. What conclusion does the Secretary of State think we can safely draw? Is it time for a new Competition Act?
Mr Davey
I draw a conclusion that we need stiff competition powers. When I was the Minister with responsibility for competition, I looked at the competition framework, the institutions and the laws that we had inherited from the last Government, and I felt that they needed to be toughened and strengthened. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will support the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which this Government have put before the House to make those reforms to competition powers.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Was the Secretary of State personally made aware of any concerns about manipulation in the gas market—in general, not just specific terms—prior to last Friday?
Points of Order
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that yesterday the fire Minister, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), inadvertently misled the House in responding to a question from me about reductions in funds for the fire service. He said that I
“might like to have a look at the figures, which show that the cut for fire authorities last year and the year that we are now in was 0.5%”.—[Official Report, 12 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 15.]
I double-checked my figures yesterday with the House of Commons Library, which confirmed that the reduction in funds for fire authorities over that period was at least 6.5%, and that if specific grants were taken into account, the figure was even higher. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you might like to invite the Minister to return to the House to correct the record.
Mr Speaker
I have no need to invite a Minister to do that, but I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he has made his own point in his own way, with great clarity, and I hope he feels satisfied about that. Secondly, all Ministers are responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of their statements to the House. In the event of an inaccurate or incorrect statement, a Minister is responsible for correcting the record. The hon. Gentleman’s point will, I trust, have been heard.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, I have two points of order, and have given you notice of one of them, which is about Parliament square. As you are aware, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 made it possible for the square to be cleared, but unfortunately the remaining demonstration seems to have expanded, and is clearly in breach of the “prohibited activity” of keeping, placing or
“using any sleeping equipment…for the purpose of sleeping overnight”.
I wonder whether you are satisfied with the situation, Mr Speaker, given that only a few months ago an Act passed by Parliament came into force so that it could be addressed.
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that, in respect of the situation in Parliament square, I have rarely been satisfied—very rarely—and I am not satisfied about it now.
It is for the courts to enforce the law and the regime to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I hope he will understand when I say that I do not wish to engage further with him on this matter at this time, but I shall be happy to look into it, and perhaps even to have a discussion with him outside the Chamber. However, I am sensitive to the inconvenience that he and other hon. and right hon. Members have experienced and continue to experience.
Mr Speaker
I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman’s appetite for his second point of order is undiminished.
David Tredinnick
It is, Mr Speaker; I am most grateful. It will not have escaped your notice that last Monday, 5 November, another demonstration came down Whitehall and then blocked the main gates of Parliament at the time of the 10 pm Division, making it impossible for Members to enter the House via the normal route. I wonder whether you are satisfied with the situation, Mr Speaker, given that at the beginning of all Sessions we used to pass Sessional Orders which instructed the police to keep the access of Parliament clear, and whether you feel that the provisions of the recently passed Act are sufficient in that respect.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure on the latter point. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right in his recollection of the previous content of Sessional Orders. I understand that they ceased to include any such reference because it was judged that the reference was ineffective, in that there was no legal power of enforcement. We might have felt better, in and of ourselves, with such an order, but it did not actually work. Whether the fact that the alternative state of affairs is not working either is satisfactory is another matter.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, and, again, I shall be happy to have further conversations with him. I am sure that the House will applaud the disinterested and public-spirited way in which he seeks to uphold not only his own rights, but those of hon. and right hon. Members throughout the House.
If there is no further point of order, either from the hon. Gentleman or from any other Member, perhaps we can now deal with the ten-minute rule motion.
Suicide (Prevention)
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set up a body to establish a public initiative for the prevention of suicide and self harm, to work with internet providers and others to reduce access to information on the internet and through other sources on methods of suicide and to develop a system of alerts and blocks for internet searches relating to suicide; and for connected purposes.
Such is the importance of this Bill in protecting the young and the vulnerable from the risks posed by websites that actively promote suicide and self-harm that I felt it necessary to present it to the House today. Every year almost 1 million people across the world die as a result of suicide, which equates to one suicide death every 40 seconds, and there is an attempt at suicide every three seconds. Each year, more lives are lost through suicide than are accounted for by all the deaths in armed conflicts across the globe. That is particularly true of Northern Ireland, where, in the 30 years of our troubles, more people died by suicide than as a result of the IRA conflict.
In Northern Ireland suicide rates remain stubbornly high, at around 15 to 16 deaths per 100,000 of our population. That has been the case since 2006, when recorded suicide rates were almost twice as high as those in the earlier part of the decade. In 2010, 313 suicides were recorded in Northern Ireland. That was the highest ever figure for the Province, and was almost six times the number of deaths due to road traffic accidents. There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of young people taking their own lives, and Northern Ireland now has the highest suicide rate among young people in any UK jurisdiction.
Yet, despite suicide prevention efforts throughout the statutory, community, voluntary and church sectors, the number and rate of suicides in the general population continue to rise. Statistics show that the suicide rate is twice as high in economically deprived areas with high levels of unemployment, and that young males are three times more likely than females to die by suicide. In the past 45 years suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide, making suicide among the top 10 causes of death in every country and one of the three leading causes of death in the 15-to-35 year age group. In England, one person dies every two hours as a result of suicide. In 2010, 4,200 people in England, 288 in Wales and 781 in Scotland took their own lives.
Those are shocking statistics, but in spite of their startling nature, there remains a lack of public awareness of suicide as a major health problem. Most people never give suicide a second thought until it touches them personally, yet its psychological and social impact on the family and society is immeasurable. Family members, friends, colleagues and sometimes whole communities are left to deal with an utter sense of loss, confusion and overwhelming devastation.
In this age of fast moving technology, however, concerns have been expressed to me by organisations such as the Public Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide and Self-Harm in Belfast, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide in England, ChildLine and the Samaritans about the considerable risks posed to children, adolescents and vulnerable adults by suicide-related material which is easily accessible on the internet. While it must be acknowledged that the online environment and associated technologies have provided unique opportunities for learning, connection and communication, there is genuine concern about its potential for harm, especially in relation to children and young people. A recent medical journal focusing on suicide and the internet describes it as “extremely easy” to access information about suicide on the internet, and refers to several sites which describe the use of guns, overdosing, slashing one’s wrists and hanging as the best methods to end one’s life.
The internet and new media are undeniably prominent features of youth culture, but there are mounting concerns about the difficulty of ensuring safe access for children and developing appropriate limits and supports in respect of that access. Online technologies are growing and expanding rapidly, and each form poses both potential and real risk to children, young people and the most vulnerable. Knowing how to use the internet safely is the key to a positive online experience, and to ensuring that the benefits of the internet are realised and children are protected from harm. In writing to me earlier this year, the executive director of Samaritans Ireland noted:
“There are some aspects of the ways that individuals interact with one another online for example through social networking sites and online chat rooms that can place vulnerable people at risk by exposing them to detail about suicide methods or conversations that encourage suicide. Indeed in recent years there have been several widely reported cases of individuals taking their own lives having used websites that have provided explicit information on suicide methods or have been used to facilitate suicide pacts.”
While the risks created by the internet are yet to be properly researched and assessed, the Samaritans is to be commended on the leadership and innovation it has shown in working with major companies to develop practical initiatives to support people at risk of suicide from such online sources.
Members may be familiar with the initiative that was launched in November 2010 in partnership with Google that adds the Samaritans helpline number above normal Google search results when people use certain search terms related to suicide. The charity also operates in partnership with Facebook, allowing UK users to get help for a friend whom they believe is struggling to cope or feeling suicidal. Such innovation shows how the online environment can deliver help and assistance to those in distress. I believe that for the first time real thought is being given to how the internet can be used to deliver help where it is most needed, and also to how sites that actively promote suicide can be restricted.
I welcome the commitment given by the Department of Health in its publication “Preventing Suicide in England” that it will
“continue to work with the internet industry through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to create a safer online environment for children and young people.”
I still believe that not enough is being done, however. That publication also recognises the growing concern about misuse of the internet to promote suicide and suicide methods, which may have contributed to as much as 2% of suicides in 2005-07, and calls on major organisations that provide content on the most popular parts of the internet to develop responsible practices that reduce the availability of harmful content and promote sources of support.
In Northern Ireland, the refreshed Protect Life strategy for 2012-14 published by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety includes a new objective to develop
“internet guidelines to restrict the promotion of suicide and self-harm, and to encourage the circulation of positive mental health messages”
by working with service providers to agree how best to maximise protection offered to internet users. Yesterday’s publication of the “Still Vulnerable” report by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People again underlined the concern about suicide among adolescents.
While I am encouraged by these advances and continually impressed and inspired by the work of charities and the voluntary and community sector, especially churches, that are committed to preventing suicide and self-harm, there is more work still to be done. Suicide remains a major issue for society. It demands our attention, but its prevention and control is, unfortunately, no easy task. Many people say there is nothing we can do, but we should not just wring our hands. Instead, we should do everything in our power to save the lives of young people who are confronted with the temptation of suicide.
I believe that this Bill presents a new and vital opportunity to confront this serious issue and help curtail the tragedy of suicide and suicidal behaviour. Only by working together can we hope to address that shared concern and achieve our common goal of saving lives and protecting our young people, the innocent and the most vulnerable. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr William McCrea, Mr Nigel Dodds, Ian Paisley, David Simpson, Lady Hermon, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Naomi Long, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Paul Goggins, Kate Hoey and Andrew Percy present the Bill.
Dr William McCrea accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January, and to be printed (Bill 89).
Backbench Business
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Child Sexual Exploitation
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of child sexual exploitation.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate and to colleagues from across the House for their support, in particular my co-sponsors, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).
First, I want to say that the vast majority of children in this country have safe and happy childhoods. It would be wrong to imply that there is a paedophile lurking behind every tree or that children in general need to grow up in fear. This debate must be approached with proportionality and common sense. However, I am here today because in March this year I received a call from the Thames Valley police to warn me that there were about to be 14 arrests for child sexual exploitation in Oxford. Operation Bullfinch has so far led to nine prosecutions, which will go to the Old Bailey in January. In total, the group concerned will face 51 charges, including the prostitution of girls under the age of 16 and administering drugs for the purposes of rape, trafficking and grooming. There are more than 50 victims, who are aged between 11 and 16, and the exploitation has carried on over an eight-year period. All of this happened minutes from my cosy flat in north Oxford.
Recently, the issue of child sex abuse has shot up the news agenda. In addition to BBC failures over Savile, the Waterhouse allegations were followed by “Newsnight” and ITV journalists and others publicising unsubstantiated and party-politicised allegations that, frankly, would not have looked out of place in the McCarthy era.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
My hon. Friend may know that I was a junior Minister in the Welsh Office when the Waterhouse inquiry was set up. Does she agree that many of those who commented on that inquiry would have been well advised to have read the Waterhouse report, as its contents serve to vindicate everything that came to light at the end of last week?
Nicola Blackwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am by no means an expert on the details of the Waterhouse inquiry. I understand that the report is very lengthy, so I have great respect for anyone who has read it in its entirety. However, I do think those who commented with such certainty would have been wise to have made sure they knew the details before making sweeping statements.
No one takes allegations of child sexual abuse more seriously than I do, but those who attempted to start a vigilante crusade of trial by Twitter were, however pure their motives, certainly not acting in the interests of the victims. At best they clouded the debate and the real issues that affect victims, and at worst they risked undermining prosecutions so that victims might be denied the very justice they deserved. Frankly, I cannot think of any more irresponsible kind of politics or journalism than that. Today’s debate should not be about allegations or rumours; it should be about how we can get better support and justice for victims.
I am daily haunted by the knowledge of what happened to those girls minutes from my home. I cannot refer to any details for fear of prejudicing the case, but that is why I am here now. It is why I called for, and secured, a Home Affairs Committee inquiry into localised grooming, and since May we have been hearing about where the system has failed, such as in Rochdale, and about the reality of the ways in which victims experience child sexual exploitation. Repeatedly I have been told that victims initially do not see themselves as victims and, in a cruel irony, even when they do they struggle to gain credibility from the very agencies meant to protect them.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Lady and colleagues for securing this enormously important debate, and of course I share her horror and concern at the events in Oxford. Do reports such as ChildLine’s excellent “Caught In A Trap” not scream out that these young people need to have confidence that there is somebody they can go and talk to? Do we not need a pervasive national campaign saying that it is okay to talk about it, coupled with suitably trained teachers, social workers and others to whom young people can go with confidence?
Nicola Blackwood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. As we are both Oxford Members, we have shared the difficulty of realising that a thing such as this could happen in Oxford. I agree with him on the importance of victims feeling that there is somewhere they can go and that they will be believed when they go there, but it is important that, first, victims realise that that is exactly what they are—victims. One problem is that many victims are slowly lured into exploitation by someone posing as a boyfriend and are then kept under control by threats. They are encouraged to commit petty offences, drink, take drugs and play truant. During that process, their relationship with their school, their family and their carers increasingly deteriorates and they become seen as disruptive and a bad influence, with the police and social services perhaps considering them to be petty criminals who are making “bad choices”. In that context, their relationship with their real family deteriorates ever more and their relationship with and dependence on exploiters, whom they see as their real family, becomes ever more entrenched, with threats, violence and intimidation commonplace.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Lady rightly observes that, paradoxically, these victims sometimes do not see themselves as victims, and she has gone on to indicate the patterns in some of those cases. Is she not concerned, therefore, that the criminal injuries compensation scheme that this House passed last night actually says that children aged 13 to 15 will not be automatically treated as victims and that all sorts of other factors can be used by claims officers to discount their claims to victim compensation?
Nicola Blackwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We should ask the Minister to respond to it, because clearly some of these people are victims of some of the most serious offences that can be imagined. It is not the automatic nature of the programme that we need to consider; rather, that these people are able to access the support when they need it.
The Government have not been idle on this issue. Tim Loughton, who led in creating the tackling child sexual exploitation strategy last November, and Ed Timpson, who now leads on it, deserve credit for the work they have done. However, we are coming from a very low base. The prevalence of child sexual exploitation and the very poor recognition of it by relevant agencies was highlighted in Barnardo’s “Puppet on a string” report as recently as January 2011. So although the Government deserve credit for the action they have taken—the strategy is an effective response—in many areas we still do not have effective plans in place.
Now, counter-intuitively, where areas are taking action the picture seems to look worse, rather than better, as more victims come forward and more perpetrators emerge. We are familiar with the pattern from other hidden crimes, such as domestic abuse; we should not be surprised that as public awareness increases, so reporting increases. We should not confuse that with increased risk. We should be aware that the high level of national media attention is artificially pushing up reporting levels, but if increased reporting does not lead to better prevention, detection and prosecution, the bravery of those victims who come forward will be for nothing. Simply identifying gaps in provision will not be enough to avoid that outcome; we also need to find practical solutions and make sure that they are actually driven through on the ground.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. She rightly makes the point that a sign of success is that more of these cases are coming to court. The fact that the Rochdale perpetrators were given 77 years in total—a tough sentence—sends out a strong message that the police and other agencies are now taking these crimes seriously, that the perpetrators are more likely to be brought to book than they were before and that they will be punished properly for the revolting crimes they have committed.
Nicola Blackwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. Although we must indentify where there have been failings in the system and root out systems that are not working, it is important that we do not vilify places that take action and bring perpetrators to justice. If we do that, we will put off local authorities and police from taking these cases to court.
Government can only do so much. It is generally accepted that local services, led by the local safeguarding children boards and police, have to lead on responding to child sexual exploitation. But before they can do that, they are going to have to accept that this issue affects them and is worthy of being prioritised in the current economic climate. There are still local authorities that do not think this affects their area. I do not cast any stones. I cannot express the shock I had when the news about the Oxford case emerged, and I do not think I was alone. Organised sexual exploitation on this scale was, to me, something that happened somewhere else—in inner cities with gangs or in cities with grinding poverty. What is more, to me, it did not happen to local girls; it happened to trafficked girls from Cambodia, eastern Europe or west Africa—or just any other place. What I have learned during this process is that it is not so much that it is everywhere, as that it could happen anywhere. The deputy Children’s Commissioner, who is halfway through a two-year inquiry into group and gang-associated child sexual exploitation, said in evidence to the Select Committee:
“what I am uncovering is that the sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country. As one police officer who was a lead in a very big investigation in a very lovely, leafy, rural part of the country said to me, there is not a town, village or hamlet in which children are not being sexually exploited.”
Peter Davies, the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre confirmed her view, although I have to say that he thought that hamlets might be pushing it.
In that context, it is not enough to have plans, regulations and guidance pushed down from government—we had that in 2009 and it did not work. What we need to know is that effective multi-agency teams are on the ground, trained to recognise risk factors and able to pursue not only prevention and early intervention, but investigation and prosecution. This is what the Government have been trying to encourage since last year, but it turns out that it is quite hard to track local progress on the ground.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one way in which the Government might be able to fulfil their role in this process is by putting a reporting requirement on local safeguarding children boards so that this evidence is collated nationally, not just locally?
Nicola Blackwood
It is as though the hon. Gentleman has read my mind; I will be coming to that point later.
When CEOP undertook its “Out of Mind, Out of Sight” report 18 months ago, it received only 13 responses from local authorities—that is out of 154 councils in England. The report was clear: local safeguarding children boards were not fulfilling their statutory responsibilities; they needed to improve their ability to recognise the risks in this area so that they could intervene early; and multi-agency working, particularly through co-located units, was the key to ensuring that data and soft intelligence did not fall between the cracks and did not succumb to overly cautious data protection practices, especially in the NHS and in social services.
The most recent survey of local authority activity that I could find comes not from any official statistic, but from unpublished research by Barnardo’s. In an August 2012 review of its “Cut them free” campaign, it found that although 107 out of 154 local authorities had signed up to tackle child sexual exploitation, few of the 31 local authorities that responded in detail had detailed, well developed strategies. Most local authorities were still planning strategies, data collection, training and specialist service provision, although most were planning to have them in place by the end of 2013. I honestly do not think that that shows a lack of will; it is an indication that this is a very recent strategy and that they are starting from a very low base.
However, it is almost impossible for us to assess the scale of the problem or the consistency of service provision without having a robust policy of data collation and collection. I do not think we can assess the risks, map the need or properly hold our local authorities to account. I would add a caveat: victims are often moved between cities, so if we are going to have any kind of data collection, it needs to be consistent between local authorities, because we do not want victims to fall through the cracks when they go from one local authority to another.
We have already seen data sharing causing too many barriers. One key problem regularly raised with me is the failure of professionals to share data about victims that could have given a full picture of what was happening. I understand, up to a point, that discerning such insidious underlying abuse beneath a bad girl image might have been a leap too far, given superficial behaviour, but what I still find difficult is that a big source of confusion lay in the fact that obvious indicators in data about victims, such as repeated missing episodes, unexplained injuries, sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, petty offences and truancy were not shared between agencies. That meant that no one even had a chance to put the picture together and discern a pattern of abuse, free from judgment about whether some 14-year-old was simply making bad choices.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In agreeing with that point, may I ask the hon. Lady whether she thinks it was therefore a good idea not to proceed with ContactPoint, which was designed so that that data could be shared easily by professionals—[Interruption.]
Nicola Blackwood
I hear two experts behind me, my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), commenting on the detail of that point, so I will allow them to comment further in their speeches. I have spoken at length to CEOP and other agencies since then and they have not given me any indication that ContactPoint would have improved their response.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when a child is in the position she just described, although it is essential that the data are shared, we do not need a vast overwhelming database in which focus is lost and in which the victims can disappear? We need a better system than we have today, but not necessarily ContactPoint, which did not provide the focused, laser-like attention on victims that was and is required.
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point—I can see this developing into a heated part of the debate—in that these enormous databases tend to lose focus on the specific point for which they were introduced. We had huge databases and the detail was being lost. A lot of information was being put into databases all over the county, but that information was not being shared or being taken out of the databases and carefully considered. Professionals need to share the information and understand the patterns, which was not happening. It was not the database that was important, but the communication between the professionals—and that did not happen.
The problem has partly been the symptom of an over-sensitive data protection culture in the NHS. I respect the culture of patient confidentiality, but it is a qualified concept and in this case it has got in the way of prosecutions for some really appalling crimes. There is a fear that if professionals share the information, it will be used inappropriately. I have had discussions with a number of professionals in the field and the solution proposed unanimously by the police, social services and others is to have co-located units based on an extraordinary principle that might be unfamiliar to some on the Opposition Front Bench: if people are put in a room and allowed to talk to each other, the outcome might possibly be better than if information dotted around a county is inputted into unrelated databases.
Putting professionals from relevant agencies who are trained to recognise CSE indicators all in the same room means they can build up the necessary trust effectively to share intelligence and work together seamlessly. That is exactly what has been recommended by CEOP and it has been proven to work in pockets of excellence in the UK. I am delighted that the Kingfisher unit, modelled on exactly those principles, will open in Oxford soon. I do not think that that principle is particularly controversial. In my opinion, unless there is conclusive evidence to prove that there is no risk of child sexual exploitation in the local authority area, every area should have such a unit because it will stop children’s lives being destroyed.
The best identification and investigation will be irrelevant if the CPS is reluctant to take up cases of child sexual exploitation. CSE victims are often perceived as unreliable witnesses because they struggle to express their experiences in court and might be unco-operative and difficult to engage with during the pre-trial period. Obviously, criminal allegations must be fully tested, but it cannot be right that under-age victims, who have been through appalling experiences and nevertheless had the courage to come forward, must face cross-examinations of their abuses that blame them, must face being called prostitutes or sex workers by people who remain unchallenged, must often face aggressive and intrusive questioning by multiple defence barristers, and must relive their experiences, often years after they have rebuilt their lives, because trial dates are set so far in advance. I have also heard stories of victims who have had to return day after day before giving evidence because of how the case has progressed. Others have had to face their abuser in open court or risk bumping into them in other parts of the court. One police officer said to me that the court process was so distressing for these victims even now that she would think twice before putting her own daughter through it.
I am pleased that the CPS is reviewing its response to CSE cases, but the serious concerns that have been raised about victim experience need a broader response. Progress has been made in this area. Special measures can make the court experience much more manageable for vulnerable victims but they are not yet applied consistently. Expert witnesses could be used in a better way and have a greater role in explaining the character, nature and consequences of sexual exploitation, as they have in cases of domestic abuse. Independent sexual violence advisers could offer significant support for vulnerable witnesses through court processes. ISVAs can not only provide direct support to the witness but ensure good practice is followed. If they can keep witnesses in the case and stop it collapsing, they will immediately provide good value for money. I hope that the Minister will raise that point with the relevant Department, because those problems are among the biggest barriers to prosecution.
If we are talking about investigations or prosecutions, it is already too late. Somewhere an under-age girl or boy will have been sexually exploited and with all the help in the world, they might never really recover. We must have better education and prevention. This is a hidden crime and many parents, carers and young people are simply unaware of the risks. There have been awareness campaigns, not to mention media coverage associated with the Derby, Rochdale and Rotherham cases, but general public and professional awareness of risk factors is still worryingly low.
In the current climate, many local authorities feel they do not have the capacity to deal with the problem. I appreciate that, but it does not have to be as cost-intensive as many feel. In Oxfordshire in the 1990s, it became apparent that domestic abuse victims were going to as many as 10 agencies before they got the help they needed, so domestic abuse champions were set up by the county council. The scheme offers volunteers from key services such as schools, housing associations, the NHS and churches—and me—two days of free training and updating networking sessions. There are now hundreds of trained volunteers in all those agencies who know how to identify, offer initial support to and signpost a domestic abuse victim. It is like a massive virtual safety net for domestic abuse victims. It is cost-effective, yes, but it is equally effective in raising awareness and reporting across the sectors. I believe that that would be a really good model to investigate for CSE networks and I hope the Minister will consider speaking to the relevant Department about how such a proposal could be implemented nationally.
Let me tell those who are getting desperate that I am beginning to approach the runway. I want first, however, to touch on calls for a public inquiry. It is vital that as we debate this matter we do not lose sight of the children experiencing exploitation and abuse in our communities. That is what we should be talking about. I appreciate that we might end up with an overarching inquiry and I understand the arguments, but we must also consider the risks. The procedures and processes, not the children we should be protecting, could become the focus of such an inquiry. Naming and shaming could take up the headlines, rather than prosecutions, which might be held up by the inquiry, being pursued. Local authorities, police forces and other agencies who are starting to set up CSE strategies might instead decide to wait two years until the inquiry finishes and makes its recommendations. Two years is a long time to wait for an 11-year-old who is being exploited.
We clearly need strong and visible leadership from the Government. We need to demonstrate to the public that this is an issue we could not take more seriously and we need to move faster with reforms so that that 11-year-old gets help now and so that we get more prosecutions now, not in two years’ time.
Mr Graham Stuart
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that police forces everywhere, not only in north Wales but across England, should not wait until any inquiries reach their findings before looking again at any evidence that they do not think was fully pursued in the past. If their cold case units or others see evidence that needs to be followed up, they should do that immediately. Just as DNA evidence has opened up old cases in the past, if there is evidence that can be followed, it should be followed, and that should be done now.
Nicola Blackwood
I absolutely agree, and I think we should all be challenging our local police forces on this issue as much as we can. Although this is not entirely analogous, it is worth noting that when the Hillsborough victims gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, they did not want another public inquiry into what had gone wrong; what they wanted was prosecutions. They wanted justice at last because they had been waiting far too long for it.
To make sure that we have a system that can deliver justice, we do need senior leadership to respond to the really significant amount of recent work done on this—the Education Committee’s work on child protection, the forthcoming Deputy Children’s Commissioner’s work on child sexual exploitation, the inquiry of the joint all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults, which looks into children who go missing from care, the implementation of the child sexual exploitation strategy and all the other inquiries and serious case reviews that will come forward. We have a Minister who leads on this issue in Ed Timpson, but given the high-profile cross-departmental and serious issues that are emerging, I think we need to see the current situation as an opportunity to go forward. I hope consideration will be given to whether that needs to be re-looked at within the Department, and in particular to whether it would be appropriate to set up an inter-ministerial group led by a senior Education Minister, but including the Home Office, Justice, and Communities and Local Government to make sure that these reforms are driven forward. I know that Barnardo’s would support that, and I am sure that the Minister would welcome the opportunity to raise that with the relevant Department.
Now I really will give way so that others may speak, and I look forward to speeches that will be far more informed than my own. Finally, I simply reiterate that most children in this country do grow up safe from harm and do not need to fear, but the stories that I have heard of the very vulnerable children in our country who think that what family means is violence, rape and exploitation haunt me. They are in my constituency; they are in your constituency; and we need to run faster and jump higher so that we can overcome the barriers that are preventing us right now from protecting them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There will not, to begin with, be a time limit in this debate, but if Members make very long speeches it will be necessary for those who come towards the end of the debate to have their time cut, so may I ask you all to bear in mind how long you are speaking this afternoon? May I also remind you, when referring to another Member, to refer to them as an hon. Friend or an hon. Member or name their constituency, because it makes it easy to record? For the record, the Members just referred to were the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson).
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on her excellent speech today, and on the major part she is playing in the Home Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into localised child grooming.
This debate is taking place following unprecedented publicity about child sexual exploitation and an abundance of high-profile and shocking cases. One of the most shocking facts is that we still do not know the extent of child sexual exploitation in this country. In Greater Manchester we have a very proactive police force. We currently have more than 50 police officers dedicated solely to working full time on child sexual grooming investigations; we have 72 more dedicated to rape allegations, including child rape, and 60 more on “inter-familial” abuse, which includes sexual offences against children.
Detectives are investigating three more major alleged incidents involving young girls after doubling the number of officers investigating claims of abuse. It brings the total number of recently completed or ongoing investigations into the abuse of teenage girls to six. Nine more men from Rochdale are due to appear in court in the coming weeks following the conviction of nine others in May, and a trial is due to start at Manchester Crown court in January involving a similar investigation which involves girls from my constituency of Stockport.
I take the opportunity to congratulate Greater Manchester police on their dedication in bringing to justice the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes, but I point out to the Minister that these investigations take a lot of resources, and more resources will be needed in the future if we are serious about tackling child sexual exploitation.
So the debate is very timely and takes place against the background of a series of fast-moving events. More than a dozen inquiries of various types have been announced recently into allegations of child sex abuse, amid ongoing concerns that authorities have not taken the claims of victims seriously enough. Over the past 20 years we have seen more than 32 public inquiries into all aspects of public life; in relation to children they included the inquiries into the Soham murders, Victoria Climbié, and north Wales care homes. From all those inquiries we are awash with a sea of recommendations. Some have been implemented, such as improved safeguarding measures to protect children, including enhanced criminal record checks introduced by the last Labour Government. Other recommendations have not.
I was recently struck by the comments of Lord Levy, who chaired the Staffordshire pindown inquiry reporting in 1991, which looked into the practice of keeping children in pindown rooms for weeks and months. Lord Levy, reflecting on what had happened to his recommendations at a later date, said:
“The recommendations resulting from the Pindown Inquiry were variously acted upon, watered down, or ignored.”
I was also interested to read Lord Laming’s 2009 report into progress since the Climbié inquiry in 2001, which made more than 100 recommendations. On inter-agency working, he said that
“it is evident that the challenges of working across organisational boundaries continue to pose barriers in practice”.
I think that meant that things were not getting much better.
Better inter-agency working has been among the recommendations of many inquiries, including the parliamentary inquiry into children missing from care, which was conducted by the all-party group for looked-after children and care leavers and the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults, which I chair. We found that the police and the Department for Education were not even collecting the same data on children missing from care, so that repeated missing episodes—one of the key indicators that sexual abuse might be taking place—were not being acted upon and children were being placed at risk of sexual exploitation.
Local safeguarding children boards are key to preventing sexual exploitation. They should be ensuring that local agencies are working effectively together, sharing information from health, police, schools and youth services to identify children who may be at risk and developing interventions to keep children safe and to stop them becoming victims of sexual exploitation. But we are a long way from that in many parts of the country, so children are facing a postcode lottery in protection from sexual exploitation.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) accepted our recommendations and I am very sorry to have seen him go. I look forward to the actions proposed by the DFE and the Home Office in response, so that in future data on missing children will be collected in such a way that it is a useful tool in identifying children at risk of sexual exploitation. I have to say that one of the concerns, however, is the new definition of missing. It is important that the new Association of Chief Police Officers guidance has enough safeguarding procedures so that the significance of repeated absences that are not recorded as missing is not overlooked and underplayed. We all know that repeated absences are an indicator that a child may be being sexually exploited on a regular basis.
I also think it is important that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary makes the inspection of police forces’ performance in this area a priority. I know this is a difficult and complex area, and that procedures or statutory guidance are by themselves not enough, although it is not acceptable when they are ignored. There is a statutory obligation for police forces to return missing statistics to the Missing Persons Bureau and yet it was only last year that all police forces returned their statistics to the bureau. So the Minister can appreciate our concern to ensure that all police forces take that seriously.
To return to Lord Levy, he said:
“We really need to bolster the procedures for ensuring that the lessons and recommendations from often expensive inquiries are carried through and actually acted upon.”
I agree, and I think before any more new inquiries are announced we should certainly find a way of reviewing recommendations of past inquiries.
I think that the Children’s Commissioner, in her newly strengthened role as a voice and advocate for children, should be given responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations of any future public inquiries relating to children are implemented and that she should report regularly to Parliament on progress towards their implementation. That might have the additional benefit of stopping the Government’s announcing of public inquiries simply to deal with the immediate pressure to solve a difficult problem. It is one thing for a Government to announce an inquiry when they know that they can kick any recommendations into the long grass; it is quite another when they might be held to account for those recommendations.
Since 2007 there have been 557 serious case reviews, although not all have been the result of child sexual exploitation. It is not clear to me what actually happens to the recommendations of those reviews, besides sitting with the local safeguarding children board. Recommendations relating to sexually exploited children in one area need to be learnt by local safeguarding children boards everywhere. After all, they serve as local inquiries. In the same way that the implementation of recommendations from public inquiries should be monitored, I believe that the recommendations from serous case reviews should be monitored, and perhaps that should be done by the Children’s Improvement Board. I also believe that a serious case review should always be undertaken if a child has been harmed by sexual exploitation, which is not currently the case.
Throughout all the inquiries and investigations into child sexual exploitation, we hear that children feel that they are not listened to. I believe that, above all else, we must strengthen their voice. That was the main message of the young people from one of the Children’s Society’s local projects when they gave evidence to our all-party group’s inquiry into children who go missing from care. It is a depressingly familiar story in most sexual abuse cases. The victims felt powerless, and one of our findings was that the professionals who were there to help them treated them as troublesome, a nuisance and a drain on resources, rather than as victims. That theme ran through the hugely important report from Barnardo’s, “Puppet on a string”, published in January 2011, which said that too often the tell-tale signs that a child was being abused were overlooked.
Children feel that their voice is not being heard, but often it is also those with responsibility for protecting them who do not want to listen. It is hard to listen, because that means having to act—and that might make life uncomfortable. We must strengthen the voice of children themselves. In our society, adults talk a lot about our rights, which in many cases do not exist, but we mean the right to a voice—our voice. I welcome the proposals to strengthen the role of the Children’s Commissioner, but she cannot be the voice of all children at all times and in all situations. Children used to be seen and not heard, and now they are sometimes heard. Somehow, we must move on so that they are always heard.
I strongly support compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, which is the Labour’s party’s policy. If children are to speak out, they must first feel confident that what is happening to them is wrong, and that is why sex and relationship education in schools is so important. They need to know—indeed, they are entitled to know—about issues such as sexual consent, what sexual coercion and exploitation is and how to shape healthy relationships and respect for each other, as well as to be alerted to signs that they are being sexually groomed. That will give them the confidence to reject inappropriate relationships, which is important in relation not only to grooming by older men for sexual exploitation, but to sexually coercive relationships by peers.
We know that harmful attitudes and behaviours are developed at a young age, and there is growing evidence about the impact of pornography on boys’ attitudes to girls. It is a problem that boys are accessing adult websites that give them a distorted attitude. It gives them a sense of entitlement, which means that they might touch a girl inappropriately and use bullying or coercive behaviour. That may explain the findings of a recent YouGov poll conducted by the Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign, in which a third of 16 to 18-year-old girls said they had been touched inappropriately at school.
Peer-on-peer exploitation is a very difficult issue, and the report by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner on gang and peer-on-peer sexual exploitation is due later this month. The perpetrators themselves are children, and that is an even more powerful reason for compulsory sex and relationship education in schools to balance what many boys see on adult websites. Boys need to be supported to form positive and respectful attitudes to girls and women. They need to understand that abuse can have a long-lasting impact, and not only physical, mental and emotional harm, but damage to a girl’s education and future.
Of course we need better inter-agency working and a better job to be done by local safeguarding children boards, but we also need to give children the knowledge to protect themselves. There is good practice around, and I am delighted about how sex and relationship education is being delivered in Stockport primary and secondary schools. Workshops, funded by Stockport council and Comic Relief, on sexual bullying and unhealthy relationships are being delivered in all local secondary schools by Stockport without Abuse, formerly the Stockport Women’s Aid group. The workshops are now being extended to year 6 pupils in primary schools in the borough and a new project will start at the end of this month that involves training young people to become “peer educators” to raise awareness of sexual harassment. The project involves Stockport council’s safeguarding unit, the Brinnington education achievement partnership and Stockport Without Abuse.
After my parliamentary debate on sexting last year, I was invited to see a film produced by two pupils at Harrytown high school. It was based on real-life situations and showed the consequences of uploading or texting indecent images. It is very important that we involve young people in that kind of work, as they will listen to other young people better than they will listen to adults. The more information children and young people receive in schools to prepare them for the world they face, the better, but that is not being done everywhere. We all know that knowledge is power, and power is what victims of sexual abuse throughout the ages have sadly lacked. Well-informed, confident children with a strong voice are less likely to become victims.
In conclusion, it is important that we learn the lessons of the past and understand the risks that children will be exposed to in the future. Only then will we be able to make significant headway in protecting children from sexual exploitation.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I will start by apologising for the fact that I have to be in my constituency later today and so, alas, will be unable to stay for the wind-ups. I have written to Mr Speaker about that and apologised to the Front Benchers and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who moved the motion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate and on the powerful and well-informed points they made. I know from bitter experience, over many years in opposition and then in government, that debates in this House on children’s issues or on safeguarding children are hard to come by. At last we are having a debate on child protection and child sexual exploitation. Perhaps that explains why the Press Gallery is deserted. This is not about celebrities, the structural overhaul of the BBC or senior politicians possibly being connected with paedophilia; it is about child sexual exploitation, a subject of huge concern to all our constituents and members of the public and something that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children says affects at least 64 children every day of every year, one in four of them aged under 11. ChildLine has had almost 16,000 contacts on just that subject. It is hugely important. Frankly, the recent media circus with sensationalist celebrity scalp hunting has really undermined the importance and severity of the issue we are at last discussing today. I think that the media should take note of that.
I must say that it is puzzling and disappointing that the Minister responsible for child protection will not respond to the debate and, indeed, that no Minister from the responsible Department, the Department for Education, is on the Front Bench. One of the responses to the “Puppet on a string” report produced by Barnardo’s was that one Minister should have overriding responsibility across Government for tackling child sexual exploitation. I took on that responsibility in my previous ministerial role and I think that my successor has also done so. Perhaps the Minister who is here today could explain whether that arrangement has changed. It is disappointing and puzzling, as I have said.
The media circus of recent days has concentrated on the BBC and political links, so it has gone almost unnoticed that there have been further arrests in the Rochdale case, an arrest in the Savile case and arrests regarding a further paedophile ring operating in Leeds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, the fact that more of these cases are hitting the news and coming to court is a sign of success in that they are being taken more seriously by the police and other agencies, who are pursuing them and making the charges stick. We need much more publicity about that.
This is an important issue now, but it was also important in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when, as has become apparent in recent days, we failed to look at it properly. Even now, the NSPCC estimates that only one in 10 cases of child sexual abuse is reported. Back in the ’70s and ’80s we would have been lucky if one in 100 was reported, let alone prosecuted and the perpetrators brought to book.
Let us take stock of recent history. An almost beatified celebrity in the form of Jimmy Savile has now been connected with some horrendous crimes involving young children. Other celebrities might be involved, and it might involve practices within the BBC. Yet when it was going on it was apparently an era of “nudge, nudge” and people saying, “Well, it’s just Jimmy—that sort of thing happens.” In fact, “nudge, nudge” and “That’s just Jimmy” was about serious sexual crimes against children, as we now recognise them to be. That is how it appears from the information that is emerging, although there is still much investigating to be done.
We then had the rumours about links with high-level politicians, which so far have not been based on any properly researched evidence. I have to say that certain allegations that were made without that evidence, both in this Chamber and in poorly researched “Newsnight” programmes, have not helped this case. However, as I said some weeks ago, why should we be surprised if there are people in political life connected with child abuse? It has affected the Church and it has affected children’s homes; it has involved people in positions of trust supposedly caring for vulnerable children. It is affecting the entertainment industry. Why should we be surprised if politicians are also involved? This is a cancer that has gone on for many years, under the radar, across a whole range of institutions that we did not previously consider.
The Waterhouse inquiry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, was very thorough. It was supposed to take a year and took over three years, and it uncovered 12,000 documents and hundreds of witnesses. It is right that we should make sure that all the evidence from that inquiry has been properly looked at. However, since last week we have had an inquiry into an inquiry. That is why I take the view, as I did some weeks ago when the Savile allegations started to come to light, that we need an overarching inquiry that goes back to the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s to look at what happened, why it happened, what stopped it happening, and what has changed to make sure that the perpetrators, who may still be at large, are at last brought to book. Importantly, it would ensure that the victims come forward and this time have their stories taken seriously and believed and, where appropriate, acted on, so that, we hope, they get some sort of closure. Even more importantly, it would help us to ensure that in 2012 every institution that has significant contact with children and young people has a robust child protection policy in place that can make these horrendous crimes much less likely.
Only today in my own area, in the diocese of Chichester, as a result of the report by Lady Butler-Sloss into allegations of child abuse, there have been two further arrests involving a former bishop. This goes everywhere, and we must not be blind to looking into every nook and cranny and under every carpet where it has been swept in the past.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree, from his experience, that the age group of victims goes from 16 to birth, so a considerable proportion of the victims cannot speak out? In the baby P case, we used legislation against witnesses that has since been expanded. We might want to look at that aspect so that those who stand by and watch, and do not speak out, could be brought to book as well.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon said, the Government cannot solve this on their own. The stories we have heard over recent weeks and months have made it clear to all of us that everybody has a responsibility of vigilance, while those in positions of care and trust have a greater responsibility than the rest of us. There is now no excuse for not realising that child abuse goes on and no excuse for someone not doing anything about it when they see it happening, or suspect that it might be happening, in their street, community, school, church, business, or whatever it might be.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Very often the children who have been abused have gone to people who are in a position to help them, but, no matter what age they are, they have not been believed. Even if they have been believed, they have been told, “It’s not something that we need to worry about because it is about somebody famous”, or if it is not somebody famous they have not been believed and nobody has taken notice of their cry for help. We must help children who are being abused to be believed, because they know what is going on.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the scandals was the fact that in some cases children were not only told to shut up or not believed but threatened physically with violence if they kept on coming forward with their stories. People said, “They’re children—what do they know about it? It’s Jimmy”, or whoever it might be, “so just go away and forget about it.” That must not happen now. We have organisations such as Childline and some excellent children’s charities that have people working in the community to whom, we hope, children can go. We have better procedures in schools, with teachers trained to look out for this sort of thing—to listen and to be able to know what to do when these stories come to light. The biggest scandal is the fact that these children were completely rebuffed in the past and not taken seriously; that must not happen in 2012.
Nicola Blackwood
One of the issues that has particularly shocked me is the attitude of some of those in the agencies that are supposed to be protecting these children in saying that they are making bad choices, as though there is a choice and a question of consent when children as young as 11 and 12 enter into sexual relationships with adult men. We must address that within all these agencies, because it cannot be allowed to continue.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend rightly made that point, as I have done on numerous occasions, including, I think, before the Home Affairs Committee on which she serves. It came out of the Rochdale inquiry, among others. The possibility that a 13 or 14-year-old girl who was being sexually abused by a 48 or 50-year-old man she did not know, plied with cigarettes and alcohol, and taken to strange places and passed around various different men could have been doing that as a result of a lifestyle choice is absolutely incredible. It also says something about how our society looks at the way in which our children grow up in this century and when they stop being children and start to become adults. As far as I am concerned, until people are 18 they are still children and young people; we have responsibilities and duties towards them, and they need looking out for. Any institution or professional who thinks that such a child could have made that decision of their own volition and in their own interests should be sacked and has no place whatsoever in any safeguarding role with children.
I will quickly make progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I remember your warning, and many others want to speak who are much better equipped than I am. The reason I suggest we need an overarching inquiry is that we now have a double-figure amount of inquiries—within the BBC, the health service, the police, and children’s homes, including in the Channel Islands. For the next three to six months—a year or so—we will incrementally have reports from these reviews and inquiries, and I am sure that we will have more of them. I know that various other investigations—responsible investigations—are going on within the media and other areas that will uncover a whole load of other aspects that we had not previously considered. Nothing should stand in the way of the police doing their work now—the most important thing is that these perpetrators are brought to book and past crimes are looked at—but we need to have an overarching inquiry by a group of well-respected, heavyweight professionals who can look at the whole history of this and give their recommendations, quite aside from the individual reviews that are being conducted. Indeed, the Australian Government have announced just that—in the past few days, the Prime Minister of Australia has announced a royal commission. She said:
“The allegations that have come to light recently about child sexual abuse”
in Australia
“have been heartbreaking. These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject. The individuals concerned deserve the most thorough of investigations into the wrongs that have been committed against them. They deserve to have their voices heard and their claims investigated. I believe a Royal Commission is the best way to do this.”
That mirrors the situation in this country, which is why I think we should go ahead with an overarching inquiry.
Are the perpetrators still at large? As I have said, the police must be able to do their work. Are victims being deterred from coming forward? We must not put any barriers in their way and we must make sure that the damaging allegations of shoddy journalism over the past few days do not do that.
Are our children safer in 2012 than they were in the ’70s and ’80s, when many of the horrible things that we have been discussing in recent days happened? They are. We have much better child-protection policies now. They are still too bureaucratic and need streamlining, which is why the working together programme was seriously streamlined. That will allow the professionals to do their job much more effectively. We have better local safeguarding children boards, which were not taking the problem seriously. The study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the university of Bedfordshire showed that 73% of safeguarding children boards did not have an up-to-speed policy on child sexual exploitation. That is now changing very quickly.
Local safeguarding children boards did not used to speak to each other, but I was keen to ensure that they did. They held their first national conference a year or so ago. I spoke at it and we had some very good people there who had not met each other before. It is obvious that sharing best practice among those LSCBs was the way to go and I secured some funding to ensure that a network of LSCBs get good advice and good practice from each other for common problems throughout the country.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that a chair from one of the health and wellbeing boards should be appointed as a national lead on child protection, to ensure that their organisations have exactly the right focus and are linked to the safeguarding children boards?
Tim Loughton
There is merit in that idea. One of my concerns when I was in the Department was the weak link of safeguarding within the health service, and that has always been the case. LSCBs often say that health representatives are the weak link and the reluctant partners. I believe that is changing. I set up some cross-departmental protocols with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who was then a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of Health. It would be sensible to give a safeguarding role to the health and wellbeing boards. We have LSCBs, public health boards, safeguarding boards and overview and scrutiny committees in local authorities, but we desperately need to link them all up, because the problem of children being abused does not change. We need the right people to exchange the right information and for somebody to pick up the ball, run with it and act on it so that children are protected and safer.
Sir Paul Beresford
My hon. Friend has not mentioned—no one has so far—the fact that legal changes since the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was crucial, have resulted in a new power, which received bipartisan support, that enables police, those who chase paedophiles on the sex offenders list, and judges to address the crime of grooming.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend was involved in bringing that about. It was difficult to define what amounted to child sexual exploitation. Although technology is a wonderful enabling tool, its emergence also enables people such as groomers to do evil things by it. We have to keep up with such people. On my visits to CEOP and Scotland Yard, I saw police officers trawling through all sorts of extraordinary, horrific imagery on their computers. It is often the case that paedophiles and traders in extreme pornography who take advantage of children are technologically one step ahead of law enforcers. We must never shirk from making sure that, technologically, our law-enforcement agencies are up to speed in doing their job, because paedophiles are really clever at using technology to peddle their vile trade.
Are we safer in 2012? I believe that we are, but we still have a long way to go. I believe that the modern equivalent of the abuse that took place in north Wales children’s homes in the ’70s and ’80s, and other similar events that are now being revisited, is child sexual exploitation gangs. Most of those that have come to light so far happen to involve British Pakistani men, but we will also see other gangs with different cultural backgrounds around the country. It is child sexual exploitation of a different sort from, but on a similarly serious scale to what happened in those children’s homes. It is not happening in children’s homes any more—we have well-regulated, well-inspected, better-equipped people—but it is happening outside children’s homes in too many cases. That is why we must be absolutely vigilant and make sure that we learn the lessons of Rochdale, Derby, Bradford and all the cases that have and are still to come to light. The knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has of the cases that may come to light in her own part of the world will bring further gasps at the fact that such savagery can actually take place. This will continue to happen.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I would caution against ever making an assumption that children are safe in any environment, even if we set up safeguards for them. We should never assume that sexual abuse cannot take place in a children’s home from now on. It is the power relationship that creates safety for perpetrators of sexual abuse. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?
Tim Loughton
I entirely agree. I used the word, “safer.” No child can be guaranteed to be absolutely safe and I would not be surprised if further stories come out of sexual exploitation of children in care homes. That is why the work that I commissioned in July to set up working parties to look at the quality of children’s residential homes, the safety of children who are increasingly being placed well away from their own homes, and better data-sharing between the police and the local children’s services department about homes, is vital. No child can be deemed to be absolutely safe—I hope that I have made that absolutely clear.
Is what happened in a north Wales children’s home less likely to happen in our children’s homes now? I believe it is, but we cannot guarantee that it will never happen. That is the comparison that I wanted to make.
Tim Loughton
I have spoken for quite a while and am almost coming to an end.
One of the most important pieces of work that was done in the Department for Education was the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan, which was launched a year ago. It brought together a whole range of different working groups. Sheila Taylor from the Safe and Sound charity was a pioneer in getting the police to realise the severity of the abuse that was going on in Derby and the midlands. The plan also brought together the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, CEOP and five Ministers from five different Departments, including the Attorney-General, to consider the problems involved in how to prosecute people without re-traumatising the victims who have to appear in court. Above all, Barnardo’s has done so much pioneering work in this area. I should also mention Andrew Norfolk of The Times, who over many years, when this was a very unfashionable, little understood issue that nobody really wanted to know about, ploughed away and uncovered some ghastly goings on, particularly in various northern cities, and he continues to do so. He must be given credit for bringing the issue to the attention of the wider public.
We brought together all those parties. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) was also part of our deliberations and made a fantastic contribution, as one would expect. It was not just a dusty document that then sat on a shelf. It needed to be acted on—it was an action plan and it needed to do what it said on the tin. When I published the action plan, I said:
“For too long now, the issue of child sexual exploitation has received too little attention. The system has not done enough to support victims and their families. The courts have not done enough to support traumatised young witnesses. And—perhaps most worryingly—too many local areas have failed to uncover the true extent of sexual exploitation in their communities.
This country has to now wake up to the fact that its children are being sexually abused in far greater numbers than was ever imagined.”
Those words are as true today as they were a year ago. Who would have believed, however, that the headlines across all the newspapers would be about child sexual exploitation or that it would dominate the media, albeit along the lines that it has gone down?
Why did we launch the action plan? It was the result of meeting many victims. I met many parents of victims as well. I met parents whose children were rescued from child abusers and whose houses were then firebombed by the abusers, who thought that it was a cheek that the daughter was not still at their disposal for abuse. The families go through horrendous experiences, not just the children.
I pay tribute to the BBC and Barnardo’s for the Whitney Dean storyline that they ran in EastEnders a couple of years ago. It was a lifelike, in-your-face, shocking, but effective story of how an ordinary girl was befriended by an extraordinary abuser and made to feel that she was part of the abuse. It showed how insidious and clever such abusers can be in inveigling themselves into the trust of vulnerable girls and boys. It was a good storyline that shocked the public into waking up to this issue. We needed to raise the profile of the issue and I think that that has been done, albeit not in the ways that we anticipated.
Secondly, the action plan was about better inter-agency working between all the different professionals, who were not sharing information or acting on it well. That is getting better. Thirdly, it was about how we rehabilitate the victims when we rescue them. This is not something that goes away the minute somebody is rescued from the perpetrator; there are mental scars that last for years. Fourthly, it was about better court practices, so that more children could go to court without being scared of giving evidence because they would be re-traumatised by a barrage of barristers operating for the gang of perpetrators.
In July last year, we produced the progress report, which contained serious practical measures that have been taken, such as the teenage rape prevention campaign, the Safe and Sound project, the BLAST project, the violence against women and girls action plan, the NHS film and social worker training. A lot is happening and a lot is improving. It needs to, because recent events have shown that this problem is still with us.
The Government need rapidly to assure the public that they are on top of this situation, that the professionals at the sharp end, whose job it is to look out for this issue, are looking out for it, and that children’s voices are being heard, taken seriously and acted on. I hope that Ministers who are not here today will hear that message and reassure the public that child protection in this country is taken far more seriously in 2012 than it was in the ’70s and ’80s, and that we will do everything we can to make our children safer.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I have a slightly different take. I will not talk about cases, although we all have them and they are horrendous. I will not talk about picking up the pieces and how we help victims, although it is incumbent on all of us to try to do that. I will talk about something that people do not want to talk much about: the causes. Why do people perpetrate these horrendous crimes? It is important to talk about that, because if we can understand some of the causes, we can take action to alleviate and diminish these horrible episodes.
We here are responsible for making the overarching legal and cultural frameworks that can lead to there being less sexual abuse in our society. It is our responsibility not to hold another debate in five or 10 years’ time when more cases come forward or, as is the case now, to hold a debate some 15 or 20 years after such cases, but to take action now to change the culture that allows such people to proliferate and continue.
I would like to hear a response on that from the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). However, much as I enjoy his company, I am saddened that there are no Ministers present from the Department of Health, the Department for Education or the Cabinet Office, because this is a matter for the whole of Government. I am not making a partisan point, because Governments over the past 20 or 25 years while I have been a Member of this House have not covered themselves in glory in trying to prevent offences in this field.
Mr Allen
I will make a little progress first. I am conscious that some people have taken a considerable amount of time to make their points, so I will try to be a little more succinct.
It is important that Ministers do not view this matter in relation to celebrities, politicians or the BBC, but that they attempt to get a serious, strategic grip on how we can combat sexual abuse. We can do that in two ways. First, there should be a coherent and precise programme of research on the perpetrators of sexual abuse. Secondly, there should be an inquiry. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned an overarching inquiry. I would like such an inquiry to transcend the individual cases that we have all been talking about over the past few months.
Mr Smith
My hon. Friend talked about the ministerial presence or absence in this debate. Is that not symptomatic of an attitude that all too easily characterises Governments —I am not making a party political point—which is that Departments do not take seriously enough matters that are raised in Back-Bench debates or from the Back Benches? They would be well advised to start doing so.
Mr Allen
I will let my right hon. Friend make his own points about that. What is important is that Ministers do not act defensively or in a way that is intended to make tomorrow’s newspapers, but that they look at this matter strategically.
There is a plethora of inquiries that have taken place, are under way or are about to take place. The most important inquiry to have, which needs to be heavyweight and overarching, is one that backs off from specific incidents and looks at the steps that we could take immediately. It should ask why the extreme dysfunction of child sexual abuse takes place at all, how the cycle of sexual abuse can be broken, and what plans all public and private institutions must deploy to intervene pre-emptively to eradicate the sexual abuse of children over a generation and longer. It should be about long-termism and should set out a stall, hopefully on an all-party basis, so that we are not back here in 20 years’ time discussing these things. It should also include how we can change personal and family behaviours and social attitudes.
This matter is as significant as the Victorian elimination of cholera and typhoid through the provision of disease-free water. It is the public health issue of our time, and we need to step up and tackle it in a serious and strategic way. I would therefore go further than the former Minister who has just spoken, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and say that something on the scale of a royal commission is needed. Such a commission has just been announced in Australia. It should look not at particular cases or at how other inquiries went wrong, but at how we can combat the development of abusive behaviour within relationships and outside the family.
Mr Allen
Royal commissions have rarely been used in recent years, when inquiries have been used to put things into the long grass or to deal with specifics rather than the generic problem.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on being so assiduous on this issue over many years, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) on helping to promote this debate. Perhaps I may also offer some friendly advice to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). A long time ago in 1989, when I had been in this House as long as she has—about two years—I asked questions of the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, and tabled early-day motions on the sexual abuse of children. I suggested—thankfully, this is still on the record—that the Home Office, and the Departments for Education and for Health should work together to figure out a strategic answer to the problem, and undertake serious, long-term research. I also suggested as part of that campaign that we should take video evidence from children in cases of child abuse. Thankfully that tiny bit of progress has been made.
I hope that success comes faster for the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon than any success that I may or may not have enjoyed. We must now look at this issue in the round, rather than at just those cases that affect us as constituency MPs. We must get to the heart of the matter, stop being reactive and start looking at the causes of the problem. There is a continuum. Abuse often begins in quite trivial ways; it escalates through violence; and it can go even further into sexual abuse—and we must start to understand how such relationships occur and how they degenerate, whether in the family or outside.
A tonne of evidence is available. I will not attempt to put it all on the record, although I will refer to a couple of points. Marcus Erooga has done a lot of work on this issue and writes about the
“high rates of convicted child abusers who have been themselves sexually abused as children”.
This is about breaking the cycle of abuse. In a horrendous case that took place 25 years ago in my constituency, children began to accept as normal some of the things that happened to them—I will not put those things on the record in Hansard—and they grew up thinking that that was part of normal sexual relations. As soon as the case was discovered, people went to great lengths to break those children away from the attitude that such things were normal. If they considered such things to be normal, it could happen again in the next generation.
I do not, of course, condemn anyone who has suffered sexual abuse as an offender in their own right—statistics do not bear that out and neither does common sense—but none the less, a very high proportion of people who perform such behaviour have had some experience of its being perpetrated on them by people they know. We can do something about that by helping people and ensuring that they have the social and emotional capability to make choices. As was mentioned earlier, people do not often choose to enter such relationships, and if we gave them the social and emotional armoury that most of us have, they would have a choice. They would be able to say no and to a greater degree resist grooming techniques.
Beckett, another source, states that abusers are
“typically, emotionally isolated individuals, lacking in self-confidence, under-assertive, poor at appreciating the perspective of others—”
in other words, no empathy—
“ill-equipped to deal with emotional distress. They characteristically denied or minimised the full extent of their sexual offending and problems. A significant proportion were found have little empathy for their victims; strong emotional attachments to children; and a range of distorted attitudes and beliefs, where they portrayed children as able to consent to, and hot be harmed by, sexual contact with adults.”
It goes on and on—personality characteristics and psychological well-being; parental histories and the cycle of abuse; substance abuse. Often, abuse is an inter-generational phenomenon that we can tackle by ensuring that people have some of the basic social and emotional capabilities that we all enjoy.
I was saddened that the case of baby P generated into finger-pointing and whether a particular social worker or person was responsible, and there was never a real analysis of why those individuals, who were allegedly care givers, treated baby P as they did. Why was no analysis done of where those people came from, why they acted as they did and why 20 years earlier—when I was new to the House of Commons and in the position that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon is in now—when those care givers were born, nothing was done to ensure that they were adequately equipped to be decent, rounded human beings, just as we would expect for ourselves and our children?
This is not rocket science; it is about how to promote good parenting and the social and emotional aspects of learning that is provided to primary school children. Every child in Nottingham starts to understand qualities such as empathy, interaction, learning and respecting others, and each time one of those capabilities is built in, the prospect that someone will become abusive, antisocial or treat others in a disrespectful way is diminished. Every teenager in the city of Nottingham studies life skills—it is like personal health and social education but involves talking about relationships and what it is like to have a family or a baby, or to maintain a relationship. By giving people such skills, their parents, care givers or teachers give them not a guarantee but an inoculation against the things that we are discussing today.
This is about the development of empathy and love and about nurturing. If people have social and emotional capability, it is difficult to go wrong. If they do not have that, they might be prone to some of the behaviour that, at its most dysfunctional and extreme, can include the sexual abuse of children. We must think beyond tomorrow’s headlines and constituency casework, and beyond the horrendous things that happen to individuals, and look strategically at how we can start to take steps to eliminate, as far as humanely possible, the sexual abuse of children.
Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon on initiating this debate—it is a great thing to have done. I hope that she, unlike me, will not be here in 20 years’ time listening to Members protest and object to terrible things that have happened in their constituencies, without having seized from the Government an opportunity to help change the culture that allows noxious individuals to grow and thrive in our society. We can do something about this issue, but we need a proper culture in which to develop serious research that the Government can pull together. We also need an overarching inquiry that deals not with individual cases, but tells us how we can combat the development of these predators and reduce sexual abuse of children in our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are 16 speakers to get in, so it would only be fair, because some of the earlier speeches were quite long, to put a limit of 12 minutes on speeches.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
May I offer my congratulations to hon. Friends and hon. Members who have secured this debate? Eighteen hon. Members spoke yesterday about 3p on a gallon of petrol. If this were an Opposition day debate, the Chamber would be packed, and if it were a statement on the armed forces, there would be 50 Government Members in the Chamber. I should tell hon. Members—not for a laugh—that if there were a debate with the word “Europe” in the title, there would be standing room only on the Government side, and yet there is a fairly token response from the House to today’s debate on child sexual exploitation and child abuse.
The first time I heard about and began to attempt to understand child sexual exploitation was when my predecessor, Ann Cryer, spoke out. I pay tribute to her work on the subject, although she did not always get it right and I did not always agree with her. She attempted to engage people in the Chamber and out in the community, but she was very much a lone voice at the time, especially in speaking to the Kashmiri Pakistani community about some of their behaviour.
The day Ann Cryer mentioned that behaviour in August a few years ago, a young British Pakistani lad from Keighley went on Channel 4 and said that her clumsy phrasing suggested that all the men in our town were paedophiles. That is not what Ann suggested, but people said, “How dare you make this accusation? You are accusing all of us in one go.” It is important to say that not all British Pakistani men are child abusers. Unfortunately, we must constantly qualify our statements so as not to give people excuses—I shall elaborate on that later.
The British National party will use grooming as a key element of its campaign in the Rotherham election campaign, which will start soon. Not all British Pakistani men are abusing white kids. There is a minority, though. The media coverage gives long lists of notorious abusers—including vicars, priests and celebrities—who are all white and non-Muslim. I need to put the problem in context before I say anything more. The vast majority of child abusers in this country are white. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) said, there are abusers in every village and every town. The demographics say that they will be white, but we should not get away from the fact that gangs of Muslim men are going round and raping white kids at this moment in time. That is an horrendous thing to say, but it is the fact of what is happening. I want to explore some of the state’s agencies’ behaviour towards that, and some of the community’s associated behaviour and culture. My speech will not fix the problem, but I hope we will make progress in the debate that Ann started. By securing the debate, my hon. Friend has also helped to move the conversation on.
The initial response to Ann’s comments in the community was, “Why is it us again? You must be racist because you are having a go at us again. Why do you keep talking about it?” Lots of the people in that community dismissed Ann’s comments and saw them as inflammatory rather than as challenging and helpful. Many people believed another injustice was being done to the community by the fact that Ann kept raising the issue. The victimhood that ran through the community gave an excuse for not facing up to the problem. I went to lots of public events to discuss the issue, but all I heard was that Ann’s constant comments undermined the community. The community failed to face up to the core issues that Ann was putting out there. The reality is that the problem has not gone away. Ann Cryer was right. Since that time, many more children have been abused because of the failures of the agencies and of the communities to address what was happening.
I have been in local government for a long time and have heard lots of comments from police officers. I had to say explicitly to senior police officers that it was okay for them to pursue individuals who were perpetrating such crimes—I needed almost to give them permission to pursue those people. Political correctness ran through the political class and some of our agencies.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is he not making the same mistake? The Home Affairs Committee asked the deputy Children’s Commissioner about this particular issue—she is now carrying out an investigation throughout the whole country—and she said that it is not to do with race or religion, but is just one form of methodology of sexual abuse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can I just say that we have to have short interventions? I know that the hon. Lady wants to speak, and I am sure that she does not want to use up her speech this early, but the problem is that if she continues to intervene, she will understand if she is moved down the list.
Kris Hopkins
Perhaps we could conclude that conversation outside the Chamber. What I would say is that I genuinely think that police officers were not encouraged—“sat on” is the wrong phrase—to go in pursuit of people. If we think about the ’70s and ’80s and the culture around child abuse, that was not specific to the Kashmiri community. Generally, police were not encouraged to go in pursuit of people who were abusing children. The consequences of that can be seen in Rochdale and in other cases that are now coming to light. However, I need to put on the record that I am absolutely confident—I have had frank conversations with police officers in my town—that the police will go in pursuit of those individuals. I say to those who have raped children, “Look over your shoulder, because the police are going to come for you, and the full weight of the police and the judicial system will pursue you.”
Some time ago, a friend of mine told me that to address a problem it is sometimes useful to look upstream to find out why it may have occurred. Perhaps some of my friends, both in the House and back home, will not like what I am going to say, but one of the problems is the way that women are treated and valued by Muslim men. I want to challenge the behaviour that says, “I embrace and honour my family, my grandmother, my mother and my sister; you are my blood, I love you and I have great affection for you,” when that passion, love and affection does not address the inequalities those women and girls have to endure. Fundamentally, there is a sexist behaviour by Muslim men towards women. We talk about institutions and commissions and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, as leaders, we need to challenge the behaviour that is going on. We need to do that from a point, though, of not being racist. We are friends who want those people to be successful in our society. They are part of British society, but there is behaviour that is unacceptable.
I want to consider the way boys live in those households. I am afraid, as one senior council officer said to me, they are little princes: they can do nothing wrong, their behaviour is not challenged, and eventually that can manifest itself. In one instance outside Bradford university, Muslim men patrolled the streets around the university verbally abusing women and girls all the time. Rather than the community of peers challenging that behaviour, we had to have a specific police intervention to stop that sexual abuse of women. I am sorry, but that is not something that just manifested at 16, 17 or 18; it is a cultural thing about the behaviour towards women that has set in right at the beginning.
I know there can be love in this, and I know there is an issue about arranged marriages, which my faith probably facilitated not many generations ago, but I would ask why so many women are brought into this country to marry. One reason why I think that plays out is that women from Pakistan are subservient. They do not speak English or understand the values and freedoms that a girl born over here may live by and have confidence in. It is more convenient for a man to have a subservient woman in his household. They are not equal citizens.
I have seven mosques in my town. The biggest can accommodate 2,000 people at prayer. I do not visit all the mosques, but I know most of the elders. I say again—because I have to—that I am not a racist, and I respect Islam as a peaceful religion. I must say, however, that some of the behaviour of the elders in those mosques is unacceptable. I talked a while ago about an imam who was caught beating and kicking children—he was caught on television and eventually prosecuted—but the political and mosque leaders tried to cover it up, as if it was somehow all right. Eventually the council had to intervene and run Criminal Records Bureau checks on the imams and tutors.
That mosque was built using the resource of the community and at no small cost—it accommodates 2,000 people, has great minarets and all the rest of it—yet the council had to CRB check those people and look after their kids. I think that some priorities are wrong in this. Do I want a material thing, or do I want my children to be looked after? If those values are not embedded inside that community, I am sorry but there are great opportunities for things to go wrong.
Finally, lots of women wear traditional dress, including the veil, but there is an issue with men looking at women in western clothes—there is the idea that they are doing so because they want sex and think that those women are available. That behaviour by some Muslim men towards western women needs to be challenged. I could talk in-depth about this matter, but I am running out of time. It is enough to say that I want people in my town to be successful, but they must understand the values that we live by.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate all those who have spoken in the debate. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on introducing it so excellently and all my hon. Friends.
In 1996, I tabled four early-day motions. To do that, I had to block parliamentary business two nights running. As Members can imagine, I got into considerable trouble with my party’s Whips, as well as Conservative Whips, but that was the only way I could get on the record what had happened in north Wales, particularly in the Bryn Estyn children’s home. The EDM that I re-tabled last Friday contains the gist of the complaint at that time. Back then, however, the subject disappeared from the Order Paper. The moment the inquiry was announced, it shut down discussion in this place for four years. That is why I thought it so important at the time to table the EDMs.
Someone suggested having a royal commission. I was on a royal commission. It took three years to report. The Waterhouse inquiry took four years. So a royal commission need not necessarily take as long as any other inquiry. I do think, however, that an overarching inquiry is extremely important.
The Clwyd county council report commissioned at the time laid bare the north Wales child abuse scandal. Had it been published at the time, it would have been very useful and things would have moved much faster. The report was suppressed, mainly because the council insurers demanded that the first full investigation into the care home scandals in north Wales be pulped. I hope that in future any council that wants to publish a report, on whatever subject, will be protected from its own insurers. I do not think that has yet been resolved. I have checked with the Library and it is still the case that insurers of a council can put pressure on it not to publish a report. That needs to be put right.
I have seen the Jillings report. There were only 12 copies, but people made copies of those 12 copies. I do not have one in my possession, because I had to hand it back, but I read things in it at the time. For instance, the then newly appointed North Wales chief constable refused to meet the inquiry or help with access to the police major incident database. The inquiry said:
“We were disappointed at the apparent impossibility of obtaining a breakdown of data. We are unable to identify the overall extent of the allegations received by the police in the many witness statements which they took.”
Some 130 boxes of material handed over by the council to the police were not made available to the panel. The council did not allow the inquiry to place a notice in the local press seeking information, because this was considered to be unacceptable to the insurers—it is interesting that the insurers of the county council were also the insurers of North Wales police. Mr Jillings was clear last week about what he had discovered back then:
“What we found was horrific and on a significant scale. If the events in children’s homes in North Wales were to be translated into a film, Oliver Twist would seem relatively benign.”
According to Jillings, the scale of what happened and how it was allowed
“are a disgrace, and stain on the history of child care in this country.”
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is raising some serious points, but when she uses the generic term “north Wales” or refers to the country, does she also accept that the majority of children’s homes—child care facilities, orphanages or whatever term one wants to use—are still run, and always were run, by loving and caring individuals, and that although these are serious allegations, they are not as widespread as some might suggest?
Ann Clwyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am not as certain as he is that he can make such a categorical statement. I think there is a lot going on in this country still which we need to get to the bottom of.
The Jillings report paints an alarming picture of a system in which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying to indecent assault and rape. Some staff linked to abuse may have been allowed to resign or retire early. The insurers suggested that the chair of the council’s social services committee—Malcolm King, a brave whistleblower—should be sacked if he spoke out, writing:
“Draconian as it may seem, you may have to consider with the elected members whether they wish to remove him from office if he insists on having the freedom to speak.”
Despite such obstructions, the panel stuck to its brief to investigate child care in Clwyd in the wake of a number of allegations and court cases involving carers. Most of the allegations covered the period 1980 to 1988, and a four-year police inquiry saw 2,600 statements taken and 300 cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eventually, eight men were charged and six convicted.
A key issue in north Wales continues to be whether there was a paedophile ring at work. One internal Clwyd council report from the time—like Jillings, unpublished—said:
“There remain worrying current instances of conviction and prosecution for sexual offences of persons who are known to have worked together in child care establishments both in the county and… other parts of the north-west”.
The report continued:
“These suggest, that abuse could have been happening unabated for many years and, that there could be operating a league or ring of paedophiles who help one another find sources and situations where abuse can be perpetrated and the addiction fed.”
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for all that she has done to highlight the historical instances of child sex abuse in care homes in north Wales. Does she agree that one of the most chilling features of what happened is the institutional nature of the crime? Those crimes were not right, even in the 1970s and 1980s; it is not just that society has changed. They involved out-and-out exploitation by people who thought that their victims were weaker than themselves. That is one of the things that makes what happened in the north Wales care homes so shocking.
Ann Clwyd
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
There were allegations, too, of abusers outside the care system. The report goes on to state:
“There were numerous claims and suggestions that senior public figures including the police and political figures might have been involved in the abuse of young people”.
I feel strongly about this matter because children from my constituency of Cynon Valley, in south Wales, were taken to that care home in north Wales, a long way from their families and friends. I put a notice in my local paper, and six young men answered the advert. This was before the Waterhouse inquiry was set up. I took detailed statements from the four of them who said that they were ready to talk to me. I took a long time to interview them individually, and I found the allegations that they made, and the descriptions of their experiences, totally emotionally draining. If I felt that, it is impossible to imagine what they must have felt.
All those young men have been damaged in some way. Their experience affected their future relationships with people. Some of them got into trouble with the law. Of the many young men who gave evidence to Jillings, to the police or to the Waterhouse inquiry, a shocking number have committed suicide, have self-harmed or have been killed in mysterious circumstances. That is one of the many reasons why we need an overarching inquiry. It could be a royal commission, as has been suggested, but whatever happens, we need an overarching inquiry; we do not want any more piecemeal inquiries.
One good thing that came out of Waterhouse was that the Welsh Assembly quickly appointed a Children’s Commissioner for Wales. In the past week, 36 people have contacted the commissioner’s office, of whom 22 have spoken of the abuse that they suffered at Bryn Estyn in Wrexham and at the network of homes connected to it. The other 14 have spoken of historical abuse in other settings.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend tells a powerful story. Does she agree that one of the major problems was that nobody believed the young people, and that they eventually felt that there was no point in trying to fight against the terrible things that were being done to them, because the whole system was geared against them?
Ann Clwyd
My hon. Friend’s constituency covers some of the Wrexham area, as does that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). They both know full well the anguish felt by the many young people who would have liked to give evidence but who were just not listened to and will not be listened to. I hope that things will change. I have mentioned those people who have contacted the Children’s Commissioner, and it is known that a number of others, perhaps dozens, have contacted politicians and solicitors to report abuse and to ask for help.
In an interview with The Guardian, Mr Towler—the commissioner—expressed concern that the intense speculation over rumours of a politician’s involvement meant that there was a danger of the victims being forgotten. He said that what happened in north Wales in the 1970s and ’80s was a consequence of children and young people not being listened to. The Children’s Commissioner said the victims’ memories were
“as clear as if it happened yesterday…we say it’s historical abuse, but actually it’s alive. This is not an archaeological dig, we’re talking to people for whom this is terribly alive. People are incredibly emotional—we have had tears, anger, relief. They’re saying, I’ve waited 30 years for this opportunity. I’ve also had conversations with people going through that emotion”.
It is not a dead issue in the minds of these young people; it is very much alive. There remains the fundamental concern that justice for many of these victims has still not been achieved.
I pay tribute again to Alison Taylor, who was one of the first whistleblowers in Gwynedd, and to Councillor Malcolm King, who was the chair of social services of Clwyd county council. They were both outstandingly brave, and Alison Taylor was sacked because nobody believed her. Only 12 copies of the Jillings report were published. I have urged for several days that it should be published. It is in the hands of the Wales Office, where it was kept at the time. Copies do exist, and I now believe it essential for it to be published. I also pay tribute to the newspapers, particularly to The Independent and The Guardian, to the BBC, ITV and many other broadcasting organisations and the press, who have helped to bring these iniquities to light.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government at the mid-way point of this important debate.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and others who have provided us with the opportunity to consider this grave matter. I thank those who have already contributed, making powerful and significant interventions on a range of related subjects that all touch on this overarching subject of child sexual exploitation.
Child protection is an absolute priority for this Government, and both the Home Secretary and I are committed to ensuring that children receive the protection they need and deserve. Where child abuse takes place, the effects on the victim can be lifelong and devastating. It is vital that victims feel empowered to come forward to report abuse and that they receive the support needed to help recover from the trauma of this hateful crime.
Equally, we are clear that if child abuse takes place, it must be thoroughly and properly investigated, and those responsible arrested and brought to justice. My message beyond this House today is that anyone who has any information about any paedophile or anyone who has suffered abuse, whether now or in the past, should feel empowered to report it to the police.
Mr Graham Stuart
I find it extraordinary that the Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box now, on two grounds: first, the representative for the Government is not listening to the whole of this important debate; and, secondly, with no disrespect to the Minister, it is he rather than a Minister from the Department for Education who is on the Front Bench now. I think the House deserves an explanation on both those fronts.
Mr Browne
These are rather procedural points, and I want to get back to the substance, but I will answer both of them. On the former, I was advised that in debates such as this, the Minister may speak either at the beginning, the end or somewhere in between—and there are merits and demerits in all those possibilities. It struck me as reasonable to speak at this stage of the debate, although I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As for his latter point, this issue touches on many different aspects of Government responsibility. There is, for instance, a large Home Office responsibility, and because the Home Secretary had already spoken in the House about topical child sexual exploitation cases, it was thought appropriate throughout Government for a Home Office Minister to reply. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), and Ministers in other Departments—including, obviously, the Department of Health—take a keen interest in the matter as well.
Gavin Shuker
I do not mean to make any partisan point, but I thought that it might be helpful if the Minister outlined exactly where the responsibilities lie, and with which Ministers. I have a particular question to ask about the strategy relating to violence against women and girls.
Mr Browne
The lead Minister is my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. As I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), many aspects of this appalling criminal activity rest—in terms of governmental responsibility—with the Home Office, because a crime has been committed, and the Home Office obviously takes a keen and leading interest in criminal matters. However, other Departments, including the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health, consider it on a cross-Government basis.
Part of the reason for today’s debate is the fact that a number of recent developments and concerns about child abuse have led to a wide and, some would say, confusing range of inquiries and investigations, and it may be helpful if I update the House briefly on where we stand. Before I do so, however, I think that I should respond to a number of Members who have raised the issue of a single judge-led inquiry into the issues of child abuse that have emerged over recent weeks.
As the Prime Minister made clear last week, the Government do not rule out the taking of further steps. We want to be absolutely on top of the problem of child sexual abuse. We do not want anything to be covered up or any information to be held back, and if there are more things that we have to do, we will do them. We must, however, let the police and others get on with the job of establishing the facts and, of course—in the case of the police investigations—establishing whether any criminal charges need to be pursued. We do not want any further inquiries or investigations to get in the way of that vital and immediate work.
Mr Allen
During my speech, I asked the Minister specifically not to concentrate on particular cases and inquiries—although they must go ahead, and he is going to outline why they are going ahead—but to step back and examine the phenomenon of sexual abuse of children. A report on this need not be produced by a judge; indeed, it might well be better for it to be produced, like earlier reports, by an academic or other impartial, independent or respected person. We need someone to view the issue from a broad perspective and to establish how we can prevent further such cases, rather than merely looking at what has happened and what we must do about it, which is what the Minister is doing at the moment.
Mr Browne
I was proposing to touch on where we stand today—because many bodies of work have been initiated or supported by the Government and I want people to understand the Government’s position, whether they approve of it or not—and then, in the second half of my speech, to deal with what we are seeking to do more broadly in policy terms. However. I take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman has made—with, as always, feeling and expertise. We are keen to understand and respond to this problem as comprehensively as we can, and I do not rule out the possibility of our doing things differently and better in the future.
There are four groups of ongoing investigations and inquiries, considering four broad issues. The first of them is the accusations made against Jimmy Savile. The Metropolitan Police Service has established Operation Yewtree to lead investigations into historical abuse relating to Jimmy Savile and connected persons. Three arrests have been made to date, and two further related arrests have been made by Greater Manchester Police. The MPS is pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry relating to over 300 victims. This is a criminal investigation, and it is absolutely right that all leads are followed up, offenders are brought to justice and victims receive the support they need.
More widely, Members may be aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has launched a review into decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute Savile in 2009. The Home Secretary has also commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out a specific review to assess what police forces knew and how they dealt with allegations in relation to the specific but worryingly wide-ranging case of Jimmy Savile and related people. In addition to these police investigations and inquiries, a range of institutions, including the BBC, and NHS premises such as Stoke Mandeville hospital, Leeds general infirmary and Broadmoor have also launched reviews and investigations to establish what took place and to ensure that any relevant information is passed to the police and that we understand the circumstances that may have allowed a predatory sex offender to abuse vulnerable children, so that we can ensure that this cannot happen again.
As well as the recent revelations regarding Jimmy Savile, Members will be aware of specific recent allegations on the issue of abuse in care homes in north Wales going back many years to the 1970s. The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear about the need to ensure that those allegations are investigated thoroughly, and that that is done in a way that commands confidence and is seen to be properly independent.
The chief constable of North Wales Police has invited the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, to lead an investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency reviewing the historical police investigations and investigating any fresh allegations reported to the police about the alleged historic abuse in north Wales care homes. He will lead a team of officers from SOCA, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and other investigative assets as necessary. He will produce an initial report by April.
North Wales Police Chief Constable Mark Polin has proposed a formal set of terms of reference for this review, which Keith Bristow has agreed to. The terms have been endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is today placing a copy in the House Library. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the Home Office is ready to assist with the additional costs of this work. The review will identify any new lines of inquiry and pursue any historical cases that warrant further investigation, to ensure offenders are brought to justice and victims receive the support they need.
Mr Bristow’s review will only consider allegations relating to historical abuse in north Wales. Any reports or allegations relating to current abuse will continue to be the operational responsibility of North Wales Police.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I welcome the reiteration of the breadth of the various inquiries. All of them are focused on the perpetrators, the institutions or the police, however, and there seems to be no mention of how we could do a better job of listening to the victims, which is, in fact, the key problem. There have been many years of abuse, and many little voices have come forward but have not been heard. Is the Minister hopeful that this inquiry will result in a greater focus on the victims, or do we need to do more to make sure the most vulnerable are heard?
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have to understand how the agencies of the state can respond more effectively, and how we can better deter potential perpetrators. I strongly agree with her point about victims, however, and I hope I will give her reasons to be encouraged in my speech.
In relation to north Wales, Mrs Justice Macur will lead an urgent independent review into whether the original Waterhouse inquiry was properly constituted and did its job. The arrangements for the review are a matter for Mrs Justice Macur, but the Ministry of Justice and the Wales Office will provide support to her, and all relevant material will be made available to support the investigation.
Finally, hon. Members will be aware that the Deputy Children’s Commissioner is one year into her two-year inquiry into gang and group-associated child sexual exploitation—this has been mentioned earlier—and that her report, with interim findings on the nature and scale of this appalling crime, will be published next week. The Government will want to consider her recommendations carefully.
Mr Browne
My understanding is that that is a matter for the Wales Office rather than the Home Office, so I will refer the right hon. Lady’s point, about which she spoke powerfully a moment ago, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales so that he can judge what is appropriate in this case. Of course we are already holding an inquiry into the inquiry that came after that report, so there is a thorough body of work here. We want to make sure that nothing is covered up and that lessons are learnt.
Hon. Members will, of course, be aware of a number of ongoing investigations into organised child sexual exploitation and a number a recent court cases that have brought perpetrators of this hateful crime to justice. Many hon. Members have touched on those issues already. Child sexual exploitation is a particularly pernicious form of child abuse and it must not be tolerated. Children are being groomed and sexually harmed and abused, by individuals acting alone or in organised and networked ways. This is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion; it happens in all areas of the country and can take many different forms. That point has been powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and others.
However, we can see, separate from the cases and accusations that I have mentioned, that a pattern is emerging in relation to a particular model of organised, serious abuse and sexual exploitation of children that predominantly involves British Asian men grooming and abusing white British girls. We are very clear that political sensitivities must not get in the way of preventing and uncovering child abuse. We are committed to dealing with this terrible form of criminal activity, just as we are committed to dealing with all other forms of child abuse. There are lessons to be learnt when things go wrong, but police forces are actively trying to tackle this issue, with an increasing number of cases being brought before the courts. I welcome that higher profile, and the police should not feel impeded in tackling this appalling crime, regardless of its nature and regardless of the perpetrators—regardless of their ethnicity, age or any other considerations. The police should feel free to act as they see appropriate in the interests of the child and the wider public interest.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I want to remind the House of one thing that the debate has not covered so far. Last year, 532 children were abducted, about half of whom, it is estimated, were abducted by strangers. We do not know what happens to them; there are no statistics. That worries me a great deal, because we are probably talking not only about abduction, but child exploitation. Goodness knows what happens to these children. We must not forget them.
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend brings to our attention another very important cause of childhood vulnerability, to which the Government are alert.
I am conscious that you do not wish me to detain the House excessively, Mr Deputy Speaker, not least because so many hon. Members wish to contribute, but I think it is important that the Government have an opportunity to explain the many areas of work that are being undertaken. The Government launched their cross-Government action plan last year. It includes a number of key commitments for agencies, including the police, and is aimed at ensuring a concerted and joined-up effort at the national and local level to ensure that all our organisations are working together to identify and tackle child sexual exploitation. It considers the different aspects of child sexual exploitation from the perspective of the young person and, earlier this year, the Government published a progress report outlining action to date.
In addition to measures contained in the action plan, the Home Office is also supporting the police in tackling child sexual exploitation in four areas. First, child sexual exploitation is now explicitly included in the definition of organised crime used in the Government’s organised crime strategy. The strategy recognises that although child sexual exploitation is not driven by profit, it shares many features with other forms of organised crime.
Secondly, we are ensuring that our national capability supports the issue. Hon. Members will be aware that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, launched in April 2006, is a law enforcement-led agency with multiple sector teams working to understand and tackle child sexual exploitation. CEOP’s role will be strengthened by its inclusion in the National Crime Agency, which will help identify the threat from child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and ensure that necessary action is taken to protect children and disrupt the activities of those perpetrating these appalling crimes. The NCA will also be subject to a new statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children across all its functions and activities.
Thirdly, it is important to tackle gang and youth violence and its relationship with child sexual exploitation. Women and girls associated with gangs are at risk of violence, particularly sexual violence. The problem remains under-reported, in our view, and largely hidden. We need to increase reporting, improve the targeting and quality of interventions for gang-associated girls and women and reduce victimisation. To support those aims, the Home Office has already committed to make an additional £1.2 million available over the next three years to improve services for young people under the age of 18 suffering sexual violence in major urban areas, with a new focus on girls and young women caught up in gang-related rape and abuse.
Thirteen young people’s advocates have been funded across the country to provide direct support to young people who have been victims or who are at risk of sexual violence.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The Minister has now spoken for 20 minutes and although people want to hear from him, if he had responded at the end of the debate he would have been limited to around 15 minutes. I hope that he will take account of the fact that many hon. Members want to speak, as taking advantage is not fair to others.
Sarah Newton
I welcome the Government’s action plan, but I would ask for assurances that victims will be better treated in court. This would be a good opportunity for the Minister to update us on what actions have been taken to ensure that victims are well treated in court.
Mr Browne
I am grateful for that intervention, in which an important point was raised. Of course, changes have been made to try to make it easier for victims to tell the truth in court, but we will look again at what further improvements can be made and I shall share that request with Ministers across the Department.
Finally, let me mention what we are doing about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about the strong link between children who go missing and child sexual exploitation. Research has shown that children are more likely than adults to go missing, placing them in risky situations, increasing their vulnerability to a range of issues and, as we are increasingly aware, placing many of those vulnerable young people at greater risk of child sexual exploitation. As children are particularly vulnerable to harm and exploitation while missing, the Government have put in place a tailored response to missing children issues by transferring responsibility for national missing children services to CEOP from 1 July 2011. We wish to see further improvements in work in that area.
In conclusion, let me reiterate—
Mr Browne
I will not, because of the strictures put in place by Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to tackle child sexual exploitation head on and to ensure that those that have suffered abuse can come forward knowing that action will taken. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her statement to the House on 6 November: “If you have been a victim of child abuse and you go to the police about what you have been through, people in positions of authority and responsibility should not and will not shirk their duty to support you.” That is our strong message today in this important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to it.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this exceptionally important debate. I want to talk about cover-ups in relation to child sex exploitation, and I particularly want to draw on two examples from Rochdale. First, let me turn my attention to what I believe was an attempted cover-up by Rochdale council and the council leader. I do not make these points lightly, and I certainly do not make them for party political reasons. Indeed, it is a Labour council and a Labour councillor is its leader.
As the Rochdale grooming case unfolded in the courts, in April, I first sensed a desire to hide the failure that had occurred when I spoke to Cheryl Eastwood, the then director of children’s services. She explained that it was a “new phenomenon” and that guidance had not been received from central Government—in other words, she was saying that no one was aware of on-street grooming, and she was suggesting that social services needed guidance from central Government to know that raping a young child was illegal.
It did not finish there. Soon after the trial Steve Garner, targeted services director for children, told The Daily Telegraph that his department had not let any of these young girls down. If there was any blame for ignoring the girls’ cries for help, he implied, it did not rest with the department in which he had worked for 11 years.
Helpfully, the Home Affairs Committee immediately started examining issues around child sex abuse, and in June called the leader of the council and the chief executive to explain themselves. It was then that the council leader from Rochdale attempted to suggest that it was a failure of information sharing that had led to the problems in Rochdale. Soon after, with evidence mounting that Rochdale council’s social services department had suggested these girls were making “life choices” and were “prostitutes,” the council leader decided to change tack. Indeed, he jumped on the back of an excellent report by the all-party parliamentary group for looked after children and care leavers, and started suggesting that the problems that occurred in Rochdale should actually be laid at the feet of private care homes. He said:
“They do not protect vulnerable children, they do not rehabilitate them back into the community, they do the opposite.”
He also said:
“Rochdale borough, at the moment, in the current climate, is the wrong place to send these children.”
It was as though Rochdale’s council leader was talking up the failings of children’s homes to avoid having to explain the failings of his own social services department.
The public began to believe that private children’s homes were part of the problem. The reality is that that was not the case, and only one victim had actually stayed in a children’s home. That became apparent months later, when the local safeguarding board published its review. First, it hardly mentioned private children’s homes because they were not part of the problem. Secondly, it pointed out that Pennine Care NHS crisis intervention team had continually tried to share information with the local authority—with the social services department. So the reality is that, contrary to what the council leader had said, people were trying to share information with his local authority, clearly trying to make the point that these girls should be taken into social services care. That was ignored by the local authority.
To bring up to date this sorry tale of an attempted cover-up, only last week the Home Affairs Committee questioned the former chief executive of Rochdale council, Roger Ellis. Throughout the session he denied having known about grooming in Rochdale until the case came to court. He had actually been the chief executive for 12 years. He had served on the local safeguarding board. Indeed, he had been the chief executive of the council when it set up a child sex exploitation working group in 2007 that had identified 50 girls who were at risk or who were experiencing sexual abuse.
Of course, cover-ups happen when reputations need to be protected at all costs. In that respect, attempts to suppress the truth are not new in Rochdale. The culture of cover-ups stretches back much further than the recent grooming scandal and extends right to the heart of our political establishment. If we are to ensure that victims of child abuse are sufficiently empowered to claw back some of the dignity that has been taken from them, we must be open about the widespread abuse of power in our borough. That is why it is necessary to turn to Sir Cyril Smith.
Cyril Smith was a political giant in Rochdale and one of the most recognisable politicians in the country, but his career was continually dogged by allegations that he had abused boys. The allegations even appeared in some of his obituaries. We also know that they appeared in police reports. Lancashire police have recently said that they cannot find those reports, but they accept that they carried out an investigation and it has been suggested that a report was pushed to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1969.
Today, more victims have come forward and the journalist Paul Waugh, who hails from Rochdale, is reporting fresh allegations against Cyril Smith from victims who claim he assaulted them as young boys at Cambridge House boys hostel. The allegations must be properly investigated and the seriousness of the victims’ complaints must be acknowledged.
I have been passed statements that were issued to the police in the 1970s regarding Cyril Smith’s activities at Cambridge House boys’ hostel, and they make grim reading. For some unknown reason, Cyril Smith had a kind of disciplinarian role at the hostel and was given free rein to administer punishments to the boys. This is one example of how he dealt with bad behaviour:
“He told me to take my trousers and pants down and bend over his knee. He hit me many times with his bare hands and I pleaded with him to stop because he was hurting me. Afterward he came to my bedroom and wiped my buttocks with a wet sponge.”
Another of Cyril Smith’s victims, Barry Fitton, has spoken out today in the article published by Paul Waugh on the PoliticsHome website. Another victim, Eddie Shorrock, has also come forward and spoken for the first time about being abused by Smith. This morning I was approached by another victim who does not wish to be named because he feels ashamed about what happened to him and because his wife is unaware of the abuse. He, too, is angry and upset about how Smith treated him.
I have yet to hear any words spoken about the victims of that abuse: young boys who were humiliated, terrified and reduced to quivering wrecks by a 29-stone bully imposing himself on them. What happened to them? How can they ever forget what happened to them? Why was that allowed to happen? We need to be sure that this type of investigation now takes place and that the victims get a chance to have their voices heard.
In conclusion, confronting child abuse is a hard thing to do, but we must never allow reputations or positions of power to deter us from doing what is right. As new victims of abuse in Rochdale come forward to speak about what happened in Cambridge House, Greater Manchester police should consider re-opening the case. I call on the Minister to do everything in his power to bring police files from previous investigations about Cyril Smith to light. For far too long victims have not been taken seriously in our town, shocking allegations have not been challenged and people in roles of trust, power and authority have abused their positions. Let us hope that Britain is now reaching a tipping point where victims are taken seriously and given a voice. It is only by listening to victims that we can start to understand fully the crime of abuse in our communities. Only then can we ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I echo what has been said about listening to victims; whoever they are criticising, they must be listened to.
It is unfortunate that the statue of a naked 13-year-old boy on the front of Broadcasting House was carved by someone who abused children. However, this is not about the BBC; it is the children who matter the most. The BBC does not matter, dead celebrities do not matter, mistaken identities do not matter in the same way; what really matters is that children should be expected to be safe in the control of the state. These children are the most vulnerable because they do not have the protection of their parents and depend entirely on the state.
Only 20% to 30% of the children subject to child sexual exploitation on the narrow definition of the term are in care. Obviously, that means that 70% to 80% of those children are living in the family home. The cost of supporting a family can be as little as £3,000 per annum, whereas secure care can cost as much as £200,000 or even £500,000 per year. I accept that we need a child protection system and that not all parents are “good enough”, but I make no apology for concentrating on the failings of the state. Penny Mellor, who has campaigned against state-tolerated abuse for many years, was imprisoned because of her campaign, and was present for the north Wales inquiry, has said:
“The state as a parent is abominable, proven in Rochdale and proven in North Wales. If we are going to remove children into the care of the state then it is about time we ensured that the state is a better parent than the one we removed them from. The who is not relevant, sexual abuse perpetrated by anyone is devastating.”
It is important to recognise that the state system is still harming children. Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford are not the whole story. One problem is the lack of accountability. Individual practitioners are basically allowed to get on with things as they wish. There are good practitioners but also bad practitioners, and their bad practice is not picked up by the system. A good example of this is from New Zealand, where social workers encouraged a 14-year-old girl to have group sex with a number of St John Ambulance workers and “divorce” her parents, who wished to discourage this. St John Ambulance has still not finally dealt with this issue and some of the workers are scheduled to receive a Queen’s Award. Another example is from Birmingham, where a child was first sexually harassed in a foster placement and then got pregnant at the age of 15, while in the control of the state. Practitioners in Birmingham have argued in the past that children should be permitted to prostitute themselves while not being allowed to make toast for each other, for health and safety reasons.
As at 31 March 2011, 160 girls in care had had their first child before the age of 16 and 120 had had their first child at the age of 16. So what happens? We know that the girls at Duncroft school were punished for complaining about Jimmy Savile. If a child in the power of the local authority wishes to complain about their treatment, they have to complain to an employee of the local authority or someone funded by the local authority. Where is the independence in that? The lack of independence in the complaints system is why many cases of abuse are not picked up until the children subject to the abuse become adults—not necessarily at age 18 but when they get the required confidence aged 25, 30 or later. Very rarely, a Gillick-competent child in his or her mid-teens may make contact with one of the very rare solicitors who are willing to take on the local authority, but usually nothing happens at least until the children are adults.
One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police, Graham Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What hope did those children have? It is now roughly the fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is limited, but this is part of what he says:
“I would however simply for the record, remind readers what has been established from a number of credible and independent sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers, and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have since been publicly discredited.
The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”
This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I hope that the Minister will expedite it.
Teresa Cooper, who says that she was held down by six members of staff and injected with drugs while at Kendall House at the age of 14 and that she was also sexually assaulted in a drugged state, is continuing at the age of 45 to battle to get the evidence to find out why the Government did not act to stop that. We have a duty to provide her and other survivors with the records they ask for.
There have also been numerous police operations, including Operation Rose in Northumbria, Operation Care in Liverpool, Operation Aldgate and Operation Gullane in Yorkshire, Operation Goldfinch and Operation Flight in south Wales, and Operation Camassia in Birmingham. Frequently, such operations do not get to the bottom of the issues. A few, such as that in Kincora, managed to make the link between the abuse and people external to the institution. We need to empower the survivors by providing them with the information to argue their cases. Perhaps we can then also consider the question of who turned a blind eye.
It is often easier to see that there is a cover-up than to get to the truth. For example, if people listen to last Friday’s interview with Stuart Syvret on BBC Radio Jersey—it will be available on iPlayer for a few days—they will hear how the BBC is acting as a tool of the establishment by trying to prevent him from arguing his case. Mike Stein, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explains how widespread this problem was, with a possible one in seven of children in care being subject to abuse. Australia has implemented an all-embracing inquiry, which is a good idea, although the details are complex. I believe, however, that the priority should be to empower the survivors.
We also need to act urgently to find out what is happening to children in the care system today. In the year to 31 March 2011—I do not have the later figures—according to the SSDA903 return, 430 children aged one to four, 350 children aged five to nine and 630 children aged 10 to 15 left care for “other reasons”. These are the children who have left care and we do not know what has happened to them. Have they been trafficked, have they been abducted or have they run away to live on the streets because they were unhappy in the control of the state?
The statistical system used in the USA is called AFCARS—the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System— and records when children run away, but our Government do not bother. Clearly, they do not care sufficiently to ask local authorities to tell them. When I asked the erstwhile Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to record such instances and change the statistical basis, his response was that to find out nationally how many children are trafficked from care, abducted or run away would lead to
“an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 642W.]
We need to go further. We clearly cannot trust all local authorities to tell the whole truth about everything. We already have a system for auditing what happens to the money. We really ought to have a system for checking whether we are told the truth about what happens to the children, or do the Government only care about the money and not about the children?
The secrecy, lack of transparency and consequent failures in accountability clearly failed children in the past, but they are also failing children today. We need to protect the rights of children and adults to complain and bring in greater scrutiny of family court proceedings. It is the secrecy that arises from the family courts that allows the system to avoid scrutiny and local authorities to simply say, “We are acting in the best interests of the child,” when clearly they are not.
Finally, Parliament needs to be more willing to look at individual issues before they hit the top of the news agenda. There needs to be a threshold at which collective action occurs.
There is disagreement between two particular positions that have been debated today. I have a little time, so it is worth going into this in detail. There is an argument that all we need is a bit more information sharing, but the evidence from Rochdale is that that does not work and that people are not acting. We need to ensure that people are motivated. That is the problem with the independent reviewing officer—they are not independent. The independent reviewing officer is employed by the local authority. I want to address the Lancashire county council case.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and do not want to take issue with it, but I would caution against suggesting that the evidence from Rochdale shows that information sharing does not work. The evidence from Rochdale so far shows that people failed to fulfil their responsibilities and that, had they done so and connected the threads of information and believed the victims, there would have been a much earlier and different outcome.
John Hemming
That is the point. If an employee of the local authority is presented with a challenge—namely that the care system is not working and is not looking after children—they are more inclined to ignore it. If someone is not employed by the local authority, is independent of it and can take the system through the courts if needs be, without the children having to be Gillick-competent, people will act. The problem has not been a lack of information, but a lack of action.
Parliament has to stand on the side of the powerless. Whitehall mandarins, judges, BBC managers, council bureaucrats and professionals all have their own interests and a desire to hide mistakes. Parliament needs to balance the scales on the side of the weak—those without wealth who are crying out and not being heard.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate. I entirely agreed with what she and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said about practical steps that can be taken to ensure that children are safe.
I will start by talking a little about my experience of child abuse cases. I know that the topic of the debate is sexual exploitation, but sexual exploitation is effectively child abuse. I first came across a case of child abuse as a young prosecutor, when I dealt with the case of a six-month-old baby who had been raped, incredible as it may sound. The baby was incredibly injured. It was done by her father and it was done in the home.
That is a topic that we do not often want to talk about, perhaps because we are uncomfortable about it or do not want to acknowledge it. Although cases of sexual exploitation, such as the Rochdale case, the Jimmy Savile case and cases in care homes, make sensational headlines and are heard about, the statistics of sexual abuse show that they are much smaller in number than cases of child abuse within the home or the family. Often, the perpetrators are fathers, stepfathers, older brothers, uncles, members of the extended family or friends of the family. In those situations, the abuse often carries on for years. Such cases tend to come to light only when the victim comes across somebody whom they can trust and to whom they can speak. It may be a friendly teacher at school, a family friend or a family member. The whole thing then comes out.
Again, I speak from experience. During the 14 years that I worked as an in-house lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, I was designated as the lawyer who would deal with cases of sexual abuse involving not only young victims, but adult victims. I experienced cases of abuse within the home by the family.
We also do not talk about the abuse of young boys. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) referred to the abuse of young boys by a particular individual. Young boys, too, are sexually abused and the extent of that abuse is, once again, underestimated and unknown.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and a powerful point. On the safeguarding of children, does she share my concern that agencies are still not sharing enough data to prevent the type of abuse that she is talking about from taking place?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be more sharing of information.
Since I started my life as a prosecutor many years ago—now I am at the private Bar—the way in which we deal with victims of child abuse has changed. I am pleased to say that there have been massive improvements in how we deal with children, especially through changes to court procedures. Children can now give evidence by video link so that they do not have to face the perpetrators. Such changes have made it easier for victims to come forward and for cases to be prosecuted. There have been substantial improvements in the system, but—and this is a big but—there is still a lack of knowledge about the sheer amount of abuse against children and young people. Abuse within the home needs to be explored in much more detail. We can have as many inquiries as we like into a particular care home or into what happened at the BBC, but there has been no concentration on the greater problem of abuse within the home.
I was hoping not to have to go into the issue of sexual exploitation being somehow linked with religion or culture, but in light of the speech by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins)—[Interruption]— that issue needs to be addressed. In the Home Affairs Committee, the deputy Children’s Commissioner was asked directly whether the issue was linked to race or religion, but she responded that it was not and said that it was about methodology and just one way that sexual abuse takes place. The assistant chief commissioner of Greater Manchester police said that race and religion had nothing to do with the cases in Rochdale and elsewhere. The judge in the Derby case also said that race, ethnicity and culture had nothing to do with the abuse. That is really important.
Yasmin Qureshi
May I just finish my remarks, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman?
If we start bringing such things into this debate, we lose the bigger picture. In the case of Jimmy Savile, the whole BBC is under examination. That is fine, but all the headlines in the newspapers are now dogged by the BBC and what it knew, and we have forgotten the 200 or 300 victims of Sir Jimmy Savile. In the case of the care home in Wales, again, we have forgotten about the victims and everybody is talking about procedures and who knew what. Those things are important, and as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said, we need to look at prevention and at how we can make our children safer.
Kris Hopkins
It is not Kelvin, but never mind; and my constituency is pronounced “Keithly” by the way, not “Keely”.
The point I wanted to make was that there is an opportunity for people to be outraged here. The hon. Lady says that this is not about race or religion, but time and again it is a white girl being raped by Muslim men. If we deny that fact in this House, the BNP and everybody else will climb on board. We must be very careful about how we structure these arguments.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Keighley is, indeed, Kris Hopkins. We must, however, have shorter interventions, important as they are.
Yasmin Qureshi
I was saying that it is important to recognise the methodology involved. In the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley, on the face of it the victims were white and the perpetrators were Muslims, but that is coincidental and not deliberate.
Gavin Shuker
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous as she receives no injury time for this intervention. Is the point she advocates so strongly that these samples become self-selecting after a period, and that the evidence base is not advanced enough for us to draw conclusions about race and ethnicity? Understandably, however, certain newspapers will go after certain cases.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the message and the hon. Gentleman will understand if he now gets moved down the list. He does want to speak but he has intervened a couple of times already.
Yasmin Qureshi
Let me explain why this issue is about methodology rather than race or religion. Sir Cyril Smith, for example, seems to have had a desire to abuse young boys, which seems to have been his pattern of behaviour. A system of trafficked victims—young girls who are forced into prostitution—is one method used by pimps and other criminal gangs so that they can take money from them. Jimmy Savile obviously had a penchant for young girls, and he used his position and power, and whatever presents he could give them, to influence them in order to do what he did. Sadly, most of those involved in such activities are men. Care homes contain people in a vulnerable position, and the adults who abused them were mostly men as well.
Hon. Members have also referred to grooming cases. Grooming is not new—there were such cases in many of our cities 20 years ago, but the newspapers never talked about it. I remember dealing with the type of cases that the hon. Member for Keighley spoke of, but the victim and the defendant were white. It is important to emphasise that, and not to fall into the British National party and English Defence League trap of saying that the problem is linked to race or religion—it is not.
A common factor and theme run through those different types of abuse. They virtually all involve men, and the victims are always young girls or boys or children, and always vulnerable. Leaving aside internal family cases, the external cases never involve the child who has a secure, happy family life or a home life where someone looks after or takes care of them. The cases involve children who are abused by priests when the church is looking after them, or children in a care home in a vulnerable position who do not have anyone to look after them, or young boys, such as in the Cyril Smith case, or the young girls in Keighley and other places. Many of these young people are vulnerable. Criminals virtually always commit crime on vulnerable people. People mug little old ladies. Why? It is because they are easy targets. Such people would not want to mess with 6-foot big, burley men, because it would be difficult to take anything from them. The key is vulnerability, and nothing else. If we get distracted by race or culture, we will lose sight of the bigger picture. It is the same with the inquiry into Savile. We talk about him, but what his victims went through is more important.
We need to do a number of things. The country at large needs to be educated and made aware of how prevalent sexual abuse is, particularly sexual abuse in the home. We must set up systems in schools, social services and the police, so that they are places where children can go when they are being abused. When they say what is happening to them, we need to take them seriously. I am not saying that they should be believed, but there should be an objective investigation—they should be heard and the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and their complaints should not just be put aside. At the end of the investigation, action should be taken if it is needed. Many years ago, that investigation process was not happening, as it did not more recently in the Rochdale case. We need to ensure that we have better systems and a better framework so that children can come forward and feel confident in talking to adults, including their teachers and others, about what they have been going through.
Hon. Members are shocked when they hear about sexual abuse, grooming and so on, but should we be so shocked? Historically, since time immemorial, sadly, a small percentage of men—irrespective of which part of the world they come from—have had desires towards children. We need to recognise that that small minority are interested only in abusing young children, whether boys or girls. Many child abusers do not abuse adults—their specific lust is for children. We need to recognise that that is the root of the problem.
How do we deal with that and recognise it? The best way is to use whatever mechanisms we have to prevent abuse, to detect abuse when it happens, and to deal with abusers as criminals, as they should be dealt with. Unless and until we recognise that and have systems to make it easier to protect our children, we will have those problems.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is now 10 minutes.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for co-sponsoring this important debate on child sexual exploitation, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for it. I also recognise the good work of the former Member for Rotherham, the right hon. Denis MacShane, and thank him for his role in securing the debate.
What we have heard reported in the press in recent weeks and months has been, as the deputy Children’s Commissioner Sue Berelowitz said, so terrible that it beggars belief. That has been part of the reason that the abuse has gone on for so many years. The vulnerable young people who have been abused were simply not believed by the people to whom they went for help. The impunity with which Savile went about his hypocritical reign of abuse over three decades was also aided by the silence in which most of his vulnerable victims endured their fate. I hope that those victims, who have been silent or not believed for so long, will be able to get justice at this late stage.
I will focus on the method of exploitation that differs from that of the lone perpetrator, but is systematically organised by gangs of men working together. I want to take issue with a few of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East on the issue of men of Pakistani origin abusing vulnerable white girls. I congratulate The Times and its journalist Andrew Norfolk on their campaign to expose this previously under-reported method of abuse. I agree that methodology is a key part of it, but even though most of the victims have been under the age of consent, too many professionals regarded them as prostitutes who were somehow complicit in their own rape and abuse. I support calls from Barnardo’s and The Children’s Society to end the use of the term “child prostitute”—it is a misnomer.
One mother in Rochdale, whose daughters were targeted by abusers, gave police and social workers the names and nicknames of more than a dozen men who had raped her daughter. She pleaded for her daughters to be put under child protection, but they were just regarded as bad kids. There seems to have been a complete failure by the adult professionals to understand the nature of the problem and the vulnerability of the victims.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), in a moving and shocking speech, about the director for children, schools and families in his borough who recognised, with the benefit of hindsight and recent local learning, that we missed some opportunities to offer more support and assistance to those children in 2008 and 2009. However, the problem did not emerge in 2008. It had been going on for much longer than that.
A woman I know, who I will call Samina—that is not her real name—was raised in Oldham. She described to me her experience at school 20 years ago. She told me that a lot of the men were, like her, ex-Pakistani: restaurant workers and market stall holders—men who had some money. They abused younger, white girls under the cover of the market stalls to conceal their behaviour from the police. She told me that her friends were well aware of what was going on, and that those girls were being used in the vans in which market stall keepers stored what they sold on the stalls, but everybody just kept quiet. It progressed then to brothels above kebab shops.
It is clear that the authorities were inhibited—this is why the ethnicity angle is important and we must not shy away from it—from acting for fear of being called racist.
We have heard mention of the former Member for Keighley, Mrs Ann Cryer, who was attacked continually in her constituency for raising this problem. Later, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary, spoke the truth when he said that young men were targeting white girls because Pakistani heritage girls were off limits, but some of his parliamentary colleagues said that his comments perpetuated racist attitudes. I pay tribute to work done by parts of the Asian community to tackle this problem by being honest about its roots—groups such as the Ramadhan Foundation, led by Mohammed Shafiq.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) said that we need to tackle the underlying causes and attitudes that lead to so many forms of violence against women. The inability of Asian women to tackle the problem is compounded, however, by the isolation of too many of their number. When I meet community groups in my constituency, unless I organise a women-only event, I will meet only men. At the women’s events, I need an interpreter, because many of the group will speak little or no English, as a result of which their employment opportunities are severely limited. Being unable to participate fully in life outside the home or in public life means that such women are disempowered, forced to be dependants and end up living in a closed community—and, as we know from other communities, closed communities can sweep heinous crimes, such as child abuse, under the carpet, because they are perceived to threaten the community as a whole. That has been as true of parts of the Catholic priesthood as the community I am speaking about.
We must press for greater integration, better education and more opportunities for poorer Asian women to make a life outside the home, so that they can play a bigger part in challenging their communities and bringing pressure to bear on the small minority of rogue men who are bringing their communities into disrepute.
In its recent report on child protection, the Education Committee wrote:
“We are struck by the number of submissions which noted that some forms of abuse, including forced marriage, ritual abuse, female genital mutilation, honour-based violence”—
so-called—
“and trafficking, are often only secondarily cast as child abuse: they are primarily seen as problems of integration, community or immigration. Casting them as something other than child abuse can mean that child victims are stigmatised”.
Yasmin Qureshi
The hon. Lady refers to Asian males committing crimes against young white girls. How does she explain Jimmy Savile abusing white girls? In the Welsh care homes, it was white males committing crimes against little white boys. In other cases, ethnicity and religion do not come into it.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that I am only talking about one group-related way of exploiting young children—predominantly girls. There are many other groups and individuals, about whom she spoke eloquently, who indulge in this practice as well, but I am afraid that in the instances I have raised the abuse has gone undetected and unacknowledged by children’s services, social workers and the police in our northern cities because they have been frightened of being called racists. We have to confront that issue head on.
There needs to be more support for the excellent women’s organisations that challenge the negative stereotyping of women and try to improve the situation. There are many, but I would like to mention just one, Jeena, representatives of which spoke at the Conservative Women’s Forum of MPs last week. It works on a shoestring, but is making good progress in challenging negative attitudes to Asian girls and women in schools. Clearly, it could do more with greater resources. I was shocked to hear from Jeena that a lot of schools will not accept its educational programmes, because they fear that parents will take their children out of those schools and place them in other schools that do not raise these difficult issues. That is shocking, so I hope the Minister will raise it with Education Ministers, because we have to change the mindset in some of our schools.
I want to end on prosecutions. Men who are tempted to exploit vulnerable young people need to know not only that their behaviour is unacceptable, but that there will be a far higher likelihood of a prison sentence than there has been to date. There have been far too few prosecutions. Home Office research published in the “Paying the Price” report set the number of victims of sexual exploitation at around 5,000 a year in England and Wales, yet there were only 55 prosecutions in 2009 and 57 in 2010. On the basis of those figures, there is currently a 1% chance of conviction. No wonder the crime is growing.
Mention has been made of the nine inquiries into wider sexual abuse issues, which obviously span a far greater diversity of things than I have been able to mention in my 10 minutes. I support calls for one overarching inquiry that investigates and identifies the lessons learned from young people, social services and the wider societal discrimination against young girls and women, which I have tried to highlight. An overarching inquiry would be able to make recommendations on how specialist police resources should be best deployed to maximise the number of prosecutions from yesteryear, as well as the present day. That will be the acid test of an effective inquiry in this area.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate and on the way she introduced it.
I want to address the issue from a slightly different point of view. I speak as someone who worked with survivors of incest and child sexual abuse for a number of years, so I am speaking mainly from the perspective of adult survivors of child sexual abuse. I am concerned that their voices are being drowned out by this whole stramash, which I am afraid yet again illustrates only too clearly a pattern that is often repeated when child sexual abuse is highlighted. All of a sudden people who do not know the first thing about it feel qualified to be judge and jury, going from outrage to denying the very nature and extent of the problem, saying things such as, “I don’t believe this could happen today, as attitudes have changed. Attitudes were different back then.” Perhaps things are better in the care system now, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, but personally I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that the whole thing had happened again.
What is people’s evidence for thinking that things are so different today? I was astonished to hear Lord Steel on “Any Questions?” last week suggesting that the extent of the problem could be greatly exaggerated. He also said that in all his years as an MP, no one had ever come to him about sexual abuse. Well, they have certainly come to me, and I have been an MP for far fewer years than he ever was. I am quite sure that that is also the experience of many of my colleagues. In any case, what Lord Steel said is to miss the whole point: that people do not find it easy to come forward, and certainly not to MPs.
Of course, that pattern is always followed by a “blame the victim” mentality, which we have already seen surfacing in the last few days. Victims have often been discredited in the past, accused of false memory syndrome, with a collective denial that such a thing as satanic abuse may actually exist, or, because they do not come from respectable backgrounds, are frankly written off by the whole system. When that has happened, I have been acutely aware of the effect on those who have come forward. Sometimes their confidence is so shattered that they even wish they had never said a word. We will never know how many others are deterred from coming forward at all, feeling that they will not be believed and certainly not expecting justice to be done.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Many years ago, I, like my hon. Friend, was involved with a rape crisis centre. As a result of that work, I became involved in setting up incest survivors groups. Does she agree that we should not allow child sexual abuse to become a fashionable moral panic for a few brief weeks, only to be ignored afterwards, as has often happened with other issues? We should take a responsible attitude to the way in which we discuss these things and ensure that there is a proper investigation.
Sandra Osborne
I could not agree more.
All the agencies that deal with child sexual abuse on a daily basis say that the incidence is much higher than people think, and that they are dealing with increasing numbers of survivors. As other Members have said, more people might be coming forward to name their abuser from the past because there are more resources available, but it certainly does not mean that it is a problem only of the past and not of the present. It certainly does not mean that it could not happen again. There has been scandal after scandal in the Catholic Church, involving children in care who are already vulnerable, so why are people so surprised? There are few areas in which criminal investigations have not taken place into institutional abuse. Every time, we say that we must learn the lessons to ensure that it does not happen again, but it always does.
The opportunities for grooming on the internet make today’s children even more vulnerable than they were in the past, but it is vital to remember that the majority of abuse takes place in the home and is perpetrated by a trusted adult, often the child’s father. There is a huge danger that that will be forgotten while the present debate rages on. Let us face it: it is far easier to believe that sexual abusers are an aberration, some kind of monster, rather than people like ourselves. Even when it turns out to have been a much-loved celebrity, we simply react with moral outrage, saying that he has let us all down as well as his victims, rather than face the fact that children are subjected to sexual abuse day in, day out in what is lauded as the safe refuge of the family. We also hear the myth that incest happens only in particular communities.
The reality is that, more often than not, the abusers are so-called respectable upstanding members of the community in positions of responsibility, trust and power—family men who portray to the outside world the image of a loving husband, father or close family member while using that as cover for the gross abuse of power which they believe entitles them to abuse their own children. The recent high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation show many similarities, such as the abuse of power, children not being believed, and adults with concerns not coming forward.
That is the unpalatable truth, as was the case with domestic violence in the past, when Women’s Aid was accused of being anti-male and anti-family. The same is true of tackling the taboo of child sexual abuse. Blaming the messenger for stating the obvious—that not all families provide the safe, loving and nurturing environment that every child deserves—is just another form of denial. All of this results in children being abandoned and remaining unheard, and not expecting to be heard, which suits the abuser just fine.
The media might fulminate against political correctness and describe Criminal Records Bureau checks as “bureaucracy gone mad”, but perhaps they should think again. Inquiries should of course be held to identify failings in the system, but the media should think again before they damn social workers if they do and damn them if they don’t. Or perhaps they should just try doing a social worker’s job for a week and seeing how they get on. We all know about social workers’ desperate lack of resources and huge case loads.
The air is thick with institutions desperately trying to cover their tracks, including the NHS, the BBC and the police. Inquiries, as we have heard, have been set up all over the place, and those with their own agenda are taking great pleasure in kicking the BBC. As far as I am concerned, those involved are big enough and able enough to defend themselves—children are not.
Many survivors, as I have said, will not disclose their abuse until adulthood. There is an assumption that people who have suffered childhood sexual abuse are damaged and incapable of living a normal life. On the contrary, it is testament to the strength and courage of many that they manage to have successful lives in a wide range of professions, achieving important goals in life, careers and relationships. This may apply even to MPs, if I may say so. Many survivors of abuse develop incredible coping mechanisms and carry them into adulthood. It is possible to recover from the many effects of abuse and to come to terms with what has happened by people realising that the abuse was not their fault. Some survivors find that difficulties remain with them for the rest of their lives. That is true, but it is not a hard and fast rule. Some people manage to push abuse to the back of their minds only for it to re-emerge unexpectedly like post-traumatic stress disorder later in life.
Some survivors—it has been my privilege to work alongside them—channel negative feelings into campaigning to improve awareness of abuse, and they find that helpful and life affirming. We should thank them for the work they did when they were not heard for many years but tried to raise the issue.
Thankfully, yes, there are now numerous charities and agencies providing support and treatment, but they do not have enough resources. Barnardo’s has said that
“local areas in all four nations”
of the UK
“will be best placed to respond if they acknowledge that this abuse could be occurring and adopt a collaborative approach to identify and tackle the problem.”
Again, some progress has been made in that respect over the last few decades. In Scotland, we have the children’s panel system—an example that has been praised in many different countries. But when it comes to adult survivors of sexual abuse, in Ayrshire, for example, our three local authorities and our health services have failed to provide a co-ordinated or coherent approach or adequate funding for services.
In conclusion, this whole sorry mess has provided us with an opportunity, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). As a society and as a Parliament, we have a chance to look at why this phenomenon occurs across races and creeds and in every country in the world, particularly our own. If we do not take that chance, we will have missed out on an opportunity, and children will suffer even more for decades to come.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this excellent debate, not least because it gives me the opportunity to tell the House about a dreadful case affecting the young daughter of a family that lives in my constituency that came to see me in my surgery last week. I am delighted to say that they are sitting up in the Gallery, listening to our debate.
At the age of 14, the daughter started being texted by the husband of a great friend of her mother’s. The texts apparently moved quickly from being simply manipulative to becoming more and more explicitly sexual. He was grooming and exploiting her for his own pleasure. Before long, these texts began to take a toll on her mental health. Her school work started slipping, and she developed anxieties about things like leaving the house unaccompanied. Her parents noticed this and wondered whether she might need the help of a psychologist; indeed, their daughter started going to see one. This young girl was trying to bear the burden of this appalling ongoing situation on her shoulders alone, because she thought she would be upsetting her mother by telling her about her friend’s husband. I have no doubt at all that this might well have been one of the reasons why he thought he would get away with it.
Eventually, early this year, when the texts started again after a break over Christmas, she broke down and explained what was really happening. Her parents rushed to report it to the police, and the man, in his late 20s, was immediately arrested. According to the parents, the police were absolutely brilliant and very supportive. They saw some of the texts and said they were indeed manipulative and completely inappropriate for sending to a young girl. However, there was a problem. Rather unsurprisingly, the young girl had deleted the vast majority of the texts, particularly the worst ones—and who could blame her? They were, as she told her parents, truly awful. Those that she still had, however, were enough to trigger the bringing of a case by the Crown Prosecution Service.
The most significant development was that the accused man admitted everything of which the girl had accused him. He admitted having sent her all those texts, perhaps because he did not know that she had deleted them. He admitted everything in a written statement, including the fact that he had asked her to meet up in some of the texts. It is reckoned that he had sent her more than 2,000 texts over 18 months or so, most of them of a horrific nature. According to the girl’s mother, he had even texted her across the table on occasions when the family went to visit him and his wife for a meal. How obsessive and frightening must that have been for a young girl who felt that the whole situation was something that she was completely unable to control?
The CPS certainly found what the young girl had to say sufficiently compelling to press the charge of intending to meet up with a minor for the purpose of rape. The man pleaded not guilty. While on bail before the trial—this shows how seriously the case was being taken—he was subject to extremely severe restrictions, including electronic tagging, a curfew and the confiscation of his passport. Meanwhile, the young girl was still understandably traumatised by it all. She almost entirely stopped attending school, and needed the support of her mother—who had to leave her own job—private tutors, the school and a psychologist in order to get through her GCSEs.
The trial finally took place last month. The charge was changed to intending to meet up with a minor for the purposes of sexual activity. The police advised the parents not to attend because the content of the messages was so distressing, so another family member stepped in. The young girl was grilled by the defendant’s QC via a video link. As I said earlier, the defendant himself had admitted everything in a written statement, including fantasising about her and “falling for her”. This, however, was the actual result of the trial: because no meeting had actually taken place, although the man had asked the young girl to meet him many times in texts, the judge was compelled to instruct the jury to find him not guilty. However, he certainly registered his utter contempt for the defendant, saying that he did not like him and refusing to grant him costs although he was to walk out of the court free.
The family are, of course, absolutely devastated. They feel that no justice has been done. The young girl is obviously very angry as well as upset, and is still badly affected by it all. Matters were made worse when the family heard that the man and his own family had held a large celebration party just down the road.
I am no expert on legal matters, but if that case reveals a gap in our legal system, surely it needs attention. The family have made it clear that they fully recognise that the judge was undoubtedly left with no choice on the issue of intentions not being turned into actions, namely meeting. They also understand that the CPS was trying to go for the bigger sentence, and therefore pressed more serious charges rather than concentrating on the texts themselves. However, the family have now run out of time in which to take the man to court over the texts in a separate case, and in any event they have been told that there would be a much less serious charge that would only attract a fine.
Surely this is most unsatisfactory. A young girl of 14 has been verbally raped, and a man twice her age has been forcing his unwanted attentions on her, which she could not resist. Surely it is likely that if his texts had been racist or homophobic, he would be behind bars by now. What protection are we offering young girls in circumstances like my young constituent? We must do better, and, if necessary, we must have new legal sanctions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and the hon. Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Stourbridge (Margot James), on raising an issue that concerns each and every one of us as elected representatives. That concern can be measured by the number of Members who are present today.
When I was preparing for the debate, my heart broke as I read about some of the experiences of children and young people in our country. The unfortunate fact is that evil knows no borders, and therefore there are many examples of exploitation of children throughout the United Kingdom. When I look at my wee grandchild, I wonder how anyone could ever intentionally harm any child, but we live in a society where it happens. We must do all in our power, in this place and elsewhere, to ensure that we are addressing it, and that it is no longer kept behind closed doors.
The children’s charity Barnardo’s has given its definition of child sexual exploitation:
“a form of sexual abuse in which a young person is manipulated, or forced into taking part in a sexual act.”
Many abusers groom the young person into believing they can be trusted, and then exploit that trust to use the young person for their own ends. They are evil, manipulative people, using drugs, alcohol, attention, money, food or offers of accommodation to persuade their victims.
A key difference between sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is that young people who are exploited are groomed to believe, at least at the beginning, that they are involved in a genuine relationship with their exploiter. Young people who are sexually exploited are old enough to understand, and be attracted to, the concept of having a romantic relationship with the person who then abuses them. They might be vulnerable and come from a family that is devoid of love and affection, and as a result be searching for a relationship.
A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report stated the belief that the sexual exploitation of children is part of the larger problem of child sexual abuse, the vast majority of which goes unreported and untreated and takes place in the family home or among the extended family, and is perpetrated by people—in most cases men—who are related or known to the victim. I have come across terrible cases where the abuser was the mother or the uncles or a cousin. It can be claimed that the many recent high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation and abuse show many similar patterns, such as the abuse of power, children not being believed and adults with concerns not coming forward. Those are some of the main reasons why people are able to get away with abuse for years, and even today might not have been prosecuted.
There must be accountability in some form in every institution. I sit in my church and listen to the announcements regarding child protection seminars and rules and regulations for all people who deal with children, from the bus driver to the cleaner, and regardless of whether they have been working with children for one year or the past 15 years. It makes me happy that we have checks and measures in place even in non-governmental bodies. They are essential and must carry on.
No one is above the law of the land, no one deserves absolution for crimes unless it is through the courts, and no one should ever again suffer in silence and not know where to go for help. Yet that is clearly not enough; we also need to look at how we can ensure that the measures to be taken are workable and the aims are achievable.
Before entering Parliament, I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I was tasked with reading, and responding to, the Ryan report into the systematic abuse of children in the Republic of Ireland by those tasked with caring for them—by those who were supposed to have a supportive relationship with the children, but who abused that privilege. I have to say that I was left with chills after having read select parts of the Ryan report. I found it extremely difficult to read of the systematic abuse of up to 30,000 vulnerable children, and the subsequent cover-up, in the Republic of Ireland through the institution of the Catholic Church. I felt anger first, followed by sorrow at the thought of so many adults now struggling to deal with hateful childhood memories after being put into so-called “care” and at the thought of how that had affected their relationships even up to 50 years later.
When I hear about individual abuse cases during the course of my constituency work—including some horrendous and very difficult cases—I am chilled and hot at the same time. I am chilled as I cannot comprehend the evil that allows men and women to abuse the vulnerable in any way, and hot with anger that this kind of thing happens at all. For that reason, I have been working closely with the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which helps victims of abuse receive the support and help they need to make it through daily life. It has made it clear to me that we need to improve public perceptions about the way things are being handled. Victims—and, indeed, the concerned public as a whole—must be assured that the latest Savile revelations and other allegations will not result in endless, and ultimately useless, investigations, but that they will instead result in real and meaningful changes, as well as justice for those victims.
Many organisations have been almost overwhelmed by the number of calls to their helplines. When the Savile story broke, NAPAC received hundreds of calls from people who needed help because they had been abused by a monster—there is no other way of describing him. ChildLine has released statistics that break down the number of callers where age was known. The highest number of counselling interactions was with 12 to 15-year-olds—62%. The second highest number was with 16 to 18-year-olds—32%. Last came the interactions with 11-year-olds and under, at 6%. That indicates to me that there should perhaps be more education in the lower age groups, so that children know in school that they can talk to ChildLine about not only physical abuse, but inappropriate behaviour. I know that teachers do a great job, and I am always greatly indebted to them for what they do in teaching children, but more must be done to actively highlight this point to children of a young age. We in this House must do that and help to promote it. It is certainly difficult to explain to a child the difference between someone who is genuinely caring and someone who is perhaps grooming them for later abuse. We should have a concerted strategy in place, and I ask the Minister to outline, either at the end of this debate or in writing, the strategy and the co-operation that goes on between governmental and charitable bodies in this area. The charitable organisations want to help and to be involved, and their doors are open for any suggestions that can come from government.
There is an estimated shortfall in provision of between 51,000 and 88,000 therapeutic support places. That is a huge gap between the need and the service provision for children who have been sexually abused, including those who have been sexually exploited. The NSPCC, which does tremendous work with children and whose helplines are also overwhelmed by those who have been trying to get in contact, has stated that although there has been a gradual improvement in awareness within front-line agencies, more focus and drive is needed from central Government to disseminate and implement good practice effectively. The NSPCC believes it should be a statutory requirement that all pre-qualifying and post-qualifying training for professionals working with young people includes dealing with child sexual exploitation, and I agree. There are steps we can take. The organisations in this area can take them and the Government can suggest ways of taking them, and it is important that that happens. As other hon. Members have said in passionate speeches that showed a real understanding of what it means to be groomed and abused, where we can see a method whereby things can be improved and the Government can be involved in that, we hope that the measures will be in place.
This is a delicate issue. It is hard to hear what is happening behind closed doors in our so-called “modern society”, but the fact is that it is happening. So our duty, in this House and elsewhere, is to stop it happening and provide adequate support for victims. That is a huge undertaking, but if we cannot defend and help the most vulnerable in our society, as we are tasked with doing, we are not doing our job. Public confidence must be boosted but, more importantly, security and safety for those who have a story to tell and wounds to heal must be paramount. That is what we in this House are asking for today and what we are tasked with delivering. I support the thoughts that have been put forward, and I am sure that the House will also endorse them, but we need the changes in place that make a difference for the young people in our society.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing it, and I pay tribute to the powerful and often authoritative speeches we have heard this afternoon from people with a real understanding, in different ways, of the issues that come into play when we examine child sexual exploitation. I suppose that, rather like the poor, child sexual exploitation will always be with us. There is no way of eradicating it entirely; there will always be the combination of power and predilection which means that children can be sexually exploited. We need to ensure—I hope this debate will contribute towards this—greater public awareness of the issue and a greater willingness among authorities in so many different agencies to prioritise the issue and to recognise that the prevalence of child sexual exploitation is greater than people have perhaps been willing to admit in the past, not least because they find it so repellent.
I am disappointed that no representative from the Department for Education is here today, as it leads on this issue. Although the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), spoke from his departmental point of view, we need the Department for Education to provide that leadership, that ability to have the overview and that commitment always to seeing the child—not the criminal and not the trafficked person, but the child within—in all conditions.
One issue that the Select Committee found in our investigation into child protection in England, which did not focus on this area in particular, was a tendency among many authorities, such as the UK Border Agency in some cases and the police or health workers in others, to see the condition—perhaps seeing someone in a criminal environment as a criminal or someone in an immigration environment as an immigration issue—rather than a vulnerable child.
Another theme of our report was that older children are poorly served by social services compared with younger children. As many Members have powerfully said this afternoon, there is a tendency not to believe those children and not to see past their behaviour, which can be pretty awful. A troubled teenager who has been abused will not always present in the most sympathetic way. They might be involved in criminal or other antisocial behaviour and people tend not to see past that to the child who has been exploited and abused in various ways, so they do not ensure that the child gets what they need.
We all want to see a more effective system. It will never be perfect and will certainly never eradicate child sexual exploitation and we should recognise that, but we want a system that is as attuned as it possibly can be to identifying people at risk, protecting them and taking action against perpetrators who seek to exploit children.
I made inquiries of East Riding of Yorkshire council, in which my constituency sits, and I was pleased to find that it is taking child sexual exploitation seriously and has set up a child sexual exploitation strategic group. I read through the terms of reference. In some respects, it is rather a dull, dry document, but it is important that it contains stipulations such as:
“This is a strategic group during which those attending will be expected to have decision making responsibility”.
It is important to ensure that the right people turn up in such circumstances, as it is no good for someone with no authority from an organisation to turn up to tick a box. The group is absolutely right to identify that its members must have decision-making authority for their organisation on child sexual exploitation. It lists the agencies whose attendance is required, makes provisions so that anything less than 75% attendance must be questioned and expects people to attend consecutive meetings.
That is all about the nuts and bolts and quite a long way away from the more emotive issues we have discussed this afternoon, but ensuring we have the right people in the right place, taking responsibility and ensuring that the issue does not drop down the agenda, as can so easily happen, is very important. All strength to the arm of those involved across the agencies in the East Riding of Yorkshire and elsewhere in recognising the severity and prevalence of child sexual exploitation.
Let me run quickly through some of the relevant recommendations in the Select Committee’s report on child protection, which came out last week. Older children were a major theme and we wish to see
“the College of Social Work, in outlining curricula, and individual institutions delivering social work training must ensure that teaching delivers an understanding of the effect of maltreatment on older children”
and
“their ability to cope”.
The tendency is to believe that they are more resilient, but all too often they are not and the effect of abuse in the teenage years can be just as traumatic as in early life. It is just as long-lasting and just as likely to lead to unemployment, drug abuse and, in some cases, a cycle that leads to their becoming abusers in due course if they are not given appropriate support.
We were particularly concerned about care leavers and the accommodation and range of support provided for them. We visited care homes in Barnsley and were struck by the commitment of the staff and, after talking to the young people, by the quality of the support they felt they were getting. We must never be complacent in believing that our children’s homes are all safe and that we do not have abuse in our care system. However, we must also recognise that if, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) suggested, as many as one in seven children in care are subject to some form of abuse, seven out of seven of those children were subject to some form of abuse before they came into the care system. That in no way excuses failings in our care system, but we must recognise that problems in the past must not be read into problems today, although we should never be complacent. Whatever the problems in our care system, it does offer a place of safety; it does provide a haven and hope for young people. When we met children from around the country who came to a seminar with us behind closed doors, and in our visits to care homes, children told us so again and again.
I, perhaps philosophically, would have a predisposition to worry about taking children away from poor parents in the community and into the even worse parenting of the state. What we found, and the evidence we saw, was that in fact the care of the state for those children, although it is not all perfect—anything but—was, for most of the time, far better than what happened before. It is important that young people hear that, especially before they seek help. Why will they seek help if they think the help provided will make them more of a victim than they already feel? We must build up the quality of the service that our care system offers, but we must also ensure that people out there in the community, and children themselves, realise that care can be a really positive step for them.
Mark Pritchard
Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is best practice—whether it be in Barnsley or elsewhere, whether provided within the public or private sector—municipal and council boundaries should not get in the way of the sharing of that best practice, or even of good local authorities taking over child care facilities in bad local authority areas, and that there should be no ideological barrier stopping the private sector delivering the best care?
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. Obviously, again talking philosophically, I have no problem with that. Where we can split commissioning from provision, it is possible to create a better tension. The ability to challenge the service is increased if it is not directly provided by one’s department. My hon. Friend was right to make that point.
Such is my loquacity that I have used up most of the time without covering most of the issues that I wanted to talk about. As a Committee we recognised in our report that abuse between teenagers is an overlooked issue in the child protection system. That was mentioned in today’s debate. There is a need for that issue to be recognised, and for strategies to be developed to deal with the complications involved in assisting victims and perpetrators out of that abusive situation. We agreed that the primary aim within Government must be effectiveness, but we are not convinced that the system at the moment enables vulnerable children to be treated as children first. Earlier I spoke about the way in which other agencies tend to view young people.
We recommended that Childline be assisted and enabled by the Government to market its existence and services more widely, especially to older children. When we visited Childline, we were surprised to learn the number of older children who already use it. While people who do not use it might think Childline would be seen as only for younger children, children themselves seem to be using it; but we felt that more could be done to make it possible for Childline, which has a brand that people know, to be promoted more effectively. It was said earlier that for someone in the care system, the only person it is possible to complain to is someone else who works for the local authority. Well, Childline provides a third party to go to, and the NSPCC is behind it; so the more we can promote Childline, the more likely we are to make children safe.
We must do everything we possibly can to make children safer, while accepting that child sexual exploitation will go on. The one thing we have not touched on this afternoon, because we are all rightly focused on ensuring that we get better systems in place, is how we strike a balance so that children are not taught to view all adults and all men as a form of sexual predator until they are found to be otherwise. In my childhood, my best friend and I, wandering around, spent a lot of time with men in our community, none of whom sought to abuse or exploit us in any way. My life would have been very much less rich if that had not been possible. I think, frankly, today it is not possible, so some boys in single-parent households have little or no contact with men. That is enormously to be regretted.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for securing the debate and all Members who have participated in an extremely measured and well-informed debate for showing this House’s many good attributes when we approach serious subjects together. It is right that we focus on various aspects of child sexual exploitation, but I want to start with a disclaimer. All these experiences are anecdotal and based on our own angles on child sexual exploitation, but we must not forget that exploitation is prevalent in as many different types of communities as there are different types of communities in the first place.
I will talk a little about the relationship between child sexual exploitation and prostitution. It is easy, by way of shorthand, to talk about the abuse of women by men, but I appreciate that abuse can happen across different genders and ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) eloquently made the point that one of the most egregious failures in the Rochdale case was the casual way in which various adults who had responsibility discounted victims’ claims or did not take them with the seriousness they should have done. They referred to life choices and prostitution when talking about the behaviour of the young girls being abused.
There is indisputably a relationship between child sexual exploitation and prostitution, between the systematic exploitation of children by adults and the systematic abuse, largely of women and largely by men, through the purchase of sex. The Home Office’s 2004 consultation paper, “Paying the price”, said that around 50% of men and women in prostitution entered prostitution before they were 18. Some studies put the figures closer to 75%. In my experience, as chair of the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade, I have met organisations that are helping women to exit prostitution, and they put the figure at between 70% and 90%. Whatever figures we choose to use, it is clear that a real problem is the crossover between child sexual exploitation and the perpetuation of prostitution on the streets and behind doors in Britain. Barnardo’s has gathered significant evidence showing that children’s homes are regularly targeted by those trying to coerce young people into prostitution and that 70% of people in prostitution have spent some time in care.
Let us be clear, because the law is. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 clarified that it is an offence to pay for the sexual services of a child under 18. The maximum penalty, depending on the child’s age, could be 14 years imprisonment or life imprisonment. The law is incredibly clear and strong on that. When prostitution is talked about in relation to a child—the guidance on the language to be used has changed, quite rightly, in recent years—it is not the child who is at fault, but the perpetuator of the violence or the pimp who controls the young person. As 50% of people in prostitution are likely to have been abused or to have entered prostitution before the age of 18, it is highly likely that in each of our constituencies tonight, or over the course of today, people under the age of 18 are being abused in that way.
I want to ask three basic questions about why we rarely focus on prostitution in debates on child sexual exploitation. The first question relates to political leadership, and I am not making a party political point. I know from the work the all-party group has done on the implementation of section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which relates to sex with a coerced person, that, even though the law is quite clear, the agencies will struggle to implement it because they feel that there is not clear political leadership or direction on how to do so. If we look at the evidence that has been gathered since that offence was introduced, largely in relation to trafficked women, which is the clearest place where a prosecution could be brought, we see that the penalties that have been imposed have been minor, including cautions. This sends completely the wrong signals about how serious the offence is. If one talks to the Crown Prosecution Service, to the Association of Chief Police Officers or to chief constables, they will say, “If we have a clear political steer to go after an issue we will put the resources in, but we are incredibly stretched and for that reason we put our officers elsewhere.” There is a clear case for political leadership on this issue.
Secondly, there is the fact that so-called problematic behaviour is used as shorthand to get to a position whereby various workers in our social services and other places end up focusing on the behaviour of the child and not the behaviour of the adults around them. In the Rochdale case, there was an escalating cycle of sexual violence that started with alcohol and drugs but ended up with money being swapped for sex as people were pimped out. That needs to be challenged as well.
The third issue, which might be of most importance to us in this House in the coming years, is the mixed messages that are sent out on the legal settlement around prostitution. It would be possible for me today to walk out of this Chamber and to purchase sex and in doing so never once commit a crime, but I could be purchasing sex from someone who is extremely vulnerable and obviously comes from a background where they have had little choice about the route they have taken. Is that appropriate when many countries around the world such as Sweden and, even closer to home, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are looking at changes in the legal settlement around prostitution?
Child sexual exploitation requires us to have a challenging mindset that says that it is not about the supply of children but the demand of adults. I believe very strongly that in our broader society we must challenge the demand of people who want to abuse and take from others. The argument against this, of course, is choice, but I simply ask this question: with 50% of those people working on our streets tonight likely to have been sexually abused as a child and to have entered prostitution at an age below one where they could consent, what choice do they have, especially with the many complex issues surrounding the situation? If today’s debate forces us to ask whether we take this issue seriously enough to resource it sufficiently to tackle child sexual exploitation for money, and to ask the deeper questions about how we handle sex in our society, it will have been a good thing.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
This is my first speech as a Back Bencher for 10 years, so I hope that the House will permit me to place on the record my enormous sense of honour and privilege at having served as a Government Minister and having had some responsibility for the stewardship of our armed forces—unquestionably one of the finest institutions in our land, and revered throughout the world. While the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), is here, let me say that I had great pleasure in working with him when he was a Foreign Office Minister; that is evidence that the coalition was working well at least in one respect. I pay tribute to him for the contribution that he made.
So here I am on the Back Benches. I am delighted that my first contribution will be in this important debate, which has been engineered by three magnificent musketeers to whom I pay tribute, as has everyone else, for drawing attention to a matter of huge importance to our country and to the people of this country. The Press Gallery is largely empty, but I hope that it will be noted that for the entire afternoon this House has been constantly engaged with people making very important contributions on a serious matter of concern, and that this demonstrates Parliament’s interest in ensuring the protection of our young people. It is with pleasure that I take part. I will be brief for I have, in essence, one point to make.
The debate has been overwhelmingly, and understandably, dominated by the recent shocking experiences and the memory of earlier shocking experiences, and the sense of frustration we all share that this pattern of behaviour does not seem to have ended. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who was an outstanding Minister who made a fantastic contribution to supporting young people, has said that it was incredible that children were being accused by officials of exercising a lifestyle choice. I think that that goes to the heart of the matter. It is shocking that these officials, who were paid by the state and acting on behalf of the rest of us, asserted such a thing. The all-party groups on runaway and missing children and adults and on looked-after children and care leavers produced a report, sponsored by the Children’s Society, which notes in its briefing for today’s debate:
“The Inquiry heard that some professionals, including police and social services, perceive these children as ‘troublesome’, ‘promiscuous’, or indeed ‘slags who knew what they were getting themselves into’”.
That is an indictment of those charged with responsibility for acting on behalf of the rest of us, and that is what we need to address.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) put his finger on the point when he said that we need to look at the root causes. We need to understand why officials paid by the state took that view of these vulnerable young people.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to consider prevention and that we need to create an environment in which our children feel safe enough to be able to tell us when something is wrong and in which they are heard when they tell us?
Sir Gerald Howarth
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is important that young people should have that confidence, which perhaps plays into the one observation that I want to make: an assault on childhood innocence, particularly that of young girls, is widespread in our country. It can be found on television, advertising and, overwhelmingly, in magazines that are on sale at eye level—not our eye level, but children’s eye level—in every supermarket in the land.
In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) promoted a private Member’s Bill to require these girly magazines to place on their front page their target age audience. Unfortunately, the Bill fell, but I salute my hon. Friend for his work. I tried to follow it up when I came back to the House in 1997. I had a meeting with the editors of magazines such as More! and various others. Some of those magazines had features such as “position of the month”. It was sexually mechanical and devoid of moral content. I told the editors, who were overwhelmingly female, that I had a young daughter—she was young at the time but is rather older now, although I do have a young granddaughter—and when I asked them whether they would like their daughters to see such things, they all shuffled uncomfortably in their seats.
I will pay them this tribute: they have improved. I had a look around Sainsbury’s in Farnborough to check out what the magazines were up to and I think that they have got better, but they are still overwhelmingly sex-obsessed. What are young girls to think—what are young men supposed to think—except that this is the way of life and that if they are not behaving like that or like celebrities, they are old-fashioned, fuddy-duddies, not cool and behind the times?
Even this week’s OK! magazine has a headline with somebody called Harry Styles—I am afraid that he has passed my attention, but he seems a reasonably good-looking young lad—saying, “I jumped into bed with my mate’s mum”. The story is not what one might imagine it to be—it is rather more boring and less dramatic than it might appear—but it is on the front page and designed to titillate. The obsession with exploiting the vulnerability of young people—predominantly young girls—leads to situations, examples of which have been provided by so many hon. Members today, whereby they can be exploited by men. We all know—certainly us blokes here—what men are like. That is the atmosphere in which the kind of events that were happening in Keighley go on. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) for being so bold in what he said—I am sure that Ann Cryer would have approved thoroughly.
I submit—this is the essence of the argument that I am putting to the House—that one cannot look at the things that have gone on in north Wales and Rochdale without putting them in the wider national context. We must not just blame those whom we pay to look after these young people or the leaders of the local authorities, but must look at ourselves, the adults who buy this lurid dross and the people who produce it. We must ask ourselves what sort of society we are creating for our young people. It is hardly surprising that in our society young people, and young girls in particular, are vulnerable.
Tessa Munt
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem goes beyond the magazine racks of supermarkets and other shops on our high streets? Anyone can see the early sexualisation of young people in the sort of clothes that are on sale. It is possible to find bras and bikini sets for young girls of seven or eight. That is equally inappropriate.
Sir Gerald Howarth
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not think that I will find many opportunities to agree with her, but I am delighted to have done so on our first encounter. Of course, mothers are under pressure and may not themselves have had the benefit of being brought up in loving families.
Family life is important in this debate. Mention has been made of the abuse that goes on in families. When I was chairman of the Lords and Commons family and child protection group, we produced an excellent report on the cost of family breakdown entitled, “Does your mother know?” The evidence shows overwhelmingly that children who are brought up in loving families and married households tend to thrive more than those who are brought up in other family units.
In conclusion, I have been delighted to listen to so many Members from all parts of the House make common cause on a matter of great importance to the people of our country. I hope that Parliament will continue to do whatever it can to protect young people. However, let us be absolutely clear that criticising state agents in the form of local authority employees and others is not sufficient; the root cause of this problem lies at the heart of our society and the way in which we behave as a nation, and it must be tackled.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and others on securing this valuable debate? I apologise for missing the start of it. I was taking evidence in the Home Affairs Committee for the child sexual abuse inquiry that we are conducting.
It is nearly 25 years since I worked in child protection. Whatever has happened and whatever progress has been made, some familiar problems persist. There will always be scandals in departments and agencies, and individuals who fall short of what we expect. However, the real concern must be over the doubts that continue to be fostered about the claims of those who have been abused. As others have said, that is not new.
When thinking about this debate, I was reminded of a book written by Jeffrey Masson in the early ’80s called “The Assault on Truth”. It was based on a study of previously unpublished letters belonging to Sigmund Freud. It exposed the idea that Freud’s original seduction theory was based on the notion that emotional disturbances in adults stemmed from actual early traumatic experiences, the knowledge of which had been repressed. As Members will know, Freud eventually renounced that theory in favour of the view that his woman patients had “fantasised” their early memories of rape and seduction—a view on which psychoanalysis was eventually based.
Masson was sacked from his position as project director at the Freud archives for his views, but it is clear that Freud had the gravest doubts about abandoning his seduction theory, despite being under enormous pressure from civilised Viennese society who could not tolerate the idea. Masson discovered, however, that not only had Freud read contemporary literature documenting the high incidence of sexual abuse of children, but he had witnessed autopsies of children who had been raped and murdered. Denial of the victims’ claims remains the problem, just as it was in Rochdale or with Savile.
We must try to move from denial to the acceptance that such awful things happen in our society—on our streets, in our homes with those polite respectable parents, and in children’s homes where children in particular ought to be safe. The problem, however, is that people do not think that they will be believed. “Nobody else would have believed me; he was a judge”, said one adult survivor talking to ChildLine. Another said, “My father was a policeman and a mason.” We need to listen to children and young people, and take their disclosures seriously.
With all due respect to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) whose point I take seriously, as well as the problem of not listening there is the problem of dereliction of duty. I was stunned to hear the former chief executive of Rochdale council say that he had no knowledge of what happened there. He had never asked or heard any rumours, and none of the well-paid senior managers had brought the matter to his attention.
More than ever in this day and age there must be a duty for those in charge—those paid the grand salaries—to ask and provide evidence of when and how they regularly take a proactive role in seeking out information on such matters. It is a disgrace that someone can preside over a scandal and receive an enormous pay-off or early retirement settlement just as the scandal breaks; they are being rewarded for not protecting children. We need services that ensure that when young people find the courage to report abuse, they will be believed. Most importantly, we need to know that the cycle of abuse will be brought to an end.
We need to believe the victims. Sure, their stories might not always tally; they might get things wrong or misremember events and dates—how good would any of us be after years of abuse? We need to try to avoid confusing believing a victim and assessing how good a witness they might be. Those two things are not identical.
As I say, people get confused. When reading a Sunday newspaper this weekend, I was struck by a report about Steve Messham and how easy it was to conclude that various events in his life pointed to his being a liar and an unreliable witnesses. If that man is not traumatised by his experiences, who is? There may be an argument for smarter journalism at the BBC, but there is not one for ignoring what happened to Steve Messham.
Steve McCabe
I accept that entirely. I shall make a point on that before I conclude my speech, but I wanted to come back to how victims are left feeling.
Victims describe themselves as being in a cycle of fear and shame. They think no one will believe what is happening, and that they are to blame for the exploitation they are suffering. Barnardo’s points out that a key difference between sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is that exploitation often starts with grooming. In the beginning, the young people believe they are involved in a genuine relationship. It is therefore not that surprising that feelings of guilt accompany the problems when they try to deal with them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, it is true that survivors can move on, but they can do so only if they get the right help and support. We need to separate the search for evidence to convict the guilty from the support that victims need. When I was involved in this work nearly 25 years ago, I worked closely with the police to try to find evidence to convict. I must confess that I am not sure that enough of my attention was focused on the needs of victims.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has said, we need people in all the key agencies who have absolute understanding. We need a twin track. When someone comes forward and discloses, they need help, support and counselling to get them through, but they also need specialised help to get them through the court process, such as independent sexual violence advocates, and expert witnesses to advise the judge and jurors on what has really happened. More than anything, lawyers need to be guided to avoid inappropriate language and behaviour in the court that seeks further to victimise people.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the three musketeers. If we had had this debate 15 or 20 years ago, the number of Members in the Chamber would be half what it is today. There is now an interest and understanding that we did not have previously.
My interest in child sexual exploitation began when I did the police parliamentary course 10 or 12 years ago. I spent a day with the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard and came out feeling very shaky. I did not realise such people existed or that they did such things. I occasionally go back there to be topped up. I have put together a series of changes to the law that the Metropolitan police paedophile unit felt were necessary. With the help of Ministers of both this Government and the previous one, I have introduced half a dozen or a dozen changes that have strengthened the police’s opportunity to put some of those people away, and their ability to find and help victims. We must remember that they have that double role.
Much of the subject has been covered, so I will not go on about it, but when I was first at Scotland Yard, I asked the head of the paedophile unit whether it had done a guesstimate of how many predatory paedophiles there are in the country. Like the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is no longer in her place, he said that most paedophile activity or sexual abuse of children happens in the home. Most of it is dealt with by hard-working, overworked, busy social workers. We must applaud them. They have been plodding away at the problem for centuries—it must feel like that to them—and making a difference.
The paedophile unit looked particularly at predatory paedophiles. The head of the unit gave me a guesstimate that there were broadly enough of those for there to be one active paedophile for every street in the country. He told me that 20% of those were women, and that half of them—10% of the total—were women who actively took part. That shook me, and we need to think about it. We have obvious examples such as Myra Hindley and Rose West, but there have been recent cases in which women running or working in day nurseries have been predatory paedophiles.
The waking up for many of us came when a programme was broadcast by BBC 2, which was very brave to put it on, called “Hunting Britain’s Paedophiles”. I mention that because hon. Members have spoken about cases going back to the ’60s and ’70s. The first two programmes focused on how the paedophile unit trapped, caught and eventually helped to convict, thanks to the courts, a group of paedophiles whose job was paedophilia. They lived on money that they gained through their system and all they did was chase children. They put together a grooming manual on how to make a predatory attack on children. They started, I think in Tooting, in 1957, and they were not put away until about 2001. How many children they touched in a bad way is beyond fathoming. They got away with it because the kids were not believed. One of the things I tell people when I talk about this issue is that paedophiles, like these individuals, are nice people, because if they were not nice the kids would not like them, but underneath they are appalling. That case woke me up as well, and I think it woke up an awful lot of people. I remember someone saying to me, “I remember, when I was kid, the man with the box Brownie camera down at Tooting lido taking photographs.”
There have been huge changes since then. The law is very much stronger. We are starting to recognise the importance of helping victims, and there are a large number of organisations helping them, including the police. The Metropolitan police’s Sapphire unit helps people who have been victimised—and by “people” I mean women and men. Another point that the paedophile unit made to me was that more boys are abused than girls. Why? I do not know and neither did it.
There is help for paedophiles. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation has a good success rate for those it takes on board and tries to help. It works a little like Alcoholics Anonymous. To be blunt, the reason for its success is that it cherry-picks—it picks the ones it thinks it can help. To my mind, that is best value for the money available. Scores of organisations help victims. We need every single one of them, and we need their expertise. Child Victims of Crime was set up by the police to help child victims, particularly victims of paedophiles, because we as a nation—I find this distressing—did not have a decent organisation to do that. It is still going, is very successful and does an awful lot of good work.
As the Minister is here, and if he will listen for two minutes, I ask him to go through tomorrow’s Hansard with his highlighter pen, as some very good suggestions have been made. Will he assess them and act on them? I will throw in two suggestions. First, having looked at the change to the legislation and the increase in penalties, will he set up a small study to look at the actual sentences and those that are available, and have a think about having a little discussion with the judges? A lot of people have been convicted, sentenced and, to my mind, not gone away for long enough.
Secondly, we are looking for some way of creating the opportunity for victims to come forward. As I said, many are little children. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). It is not the magazines on the shelves that paedophiles use, but the internet—it is the muck that is available on the internet and the way in which kids are groomed on the internet. I saw on an internet site—I was just too shocked by this—a Polish gentleman abusing a baby with the umbilical chord still attached. The Metropolitan police acted very quickly, and I understand that he has gone away for a long time, because they made a phone call to Poland.
Finally, I would like to make a suggestion. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012, which I introduced to the House, extended this area of law to cover violent abuse. It was the Act under which the baby P case was prosecuted. Perhaps we should consider making a tiny change to that legislation to include sexual abuse, so that those who observe and stand by, or know and stand by, are duty bound by law to speak up for the victims.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). She is a first-class MP, and her constituents have every right to be proud of her, particularly for bringing forward this important and timely debate.
A lot of this discussion has centred on care facilities, orphanages and children’s homes, and rightly so, not least because of recent headlines. We have also heard about the exploitation and sexual abuse of children within nuclear or orthodox families, in private homes, and within public schools. The problem is widespread, and I, too, support those who have called on the Government to launch a wide-ranging inquiry into this issue.
Children do not choose their parents or the family circumstances into which they are born, but the tone of many comments made in this place, not today—this debate has been very measured—but in the recent past, have fundamentally misunderstood the problem. When talking about children in care, some people talk about vulnerable children, but it is the environment in which they often find themselves that is vulnerable. It is an environment not of their choosing, an environment that, in a way, can be directed and changed by the state. Despite some bad examples, as we have seen in recent weeks, the majority of people working in care homes, orphanages and child care facilities do so with due diligence, professionalism, and love, care and affection.
I speak with some authority, because I spent the first six years of my life in an orphanage. Having been to the orphanage reunion last week, I can tell hon. Members that every person there spoke highly of all the carers. I do not have one single bad memory. Perhaps I am lucky. Perhaps I am blessed. But it is important to put that on the record. The majority of people providing care do it with love, professionalism and dedication. I pay tribute to those who showed me love for the first six years of my life. There are those who, in the first six years of their life in a so-called orthodox family, do not enjoy the same level of care and love. So, although there are bad apples, the majority are doing a good job every hour of every day of every week. I pay tribute to them.
There is a wider issue about exploitation: what the state is doing and not doing. We have rightly focused on sexual exploitation, but the fact is that the taxpayer spends £250,000 for each of the 5,000 children in care facilities today. There are a total of 90,000 in care each year, and 60,000 in care right now—it ebbs and flows over the year—but 5,000 are currently in full-time care. Someone mentioned Oliver Twist. I think I am the only member of the Oliver Twist club. I remember being in the Dining Room, and somebody said, “Oh what’s that tie, Pritchard? What club is that?” I said, “It’s the Oliver Twist club,” and he said, “I’ve never heard of that.”
Perhaps today, more people have heard about it. It is for those people who I believe all have a God-given skill or ability. Some will end up as fantastic mechanics, artists or scientists, so it is absolutely correct that the state gets this right. It is absolutely wrong that too many children in care leave with no qualifications. It does not mean that they do not have brains, intelligence or an intellect. Too many children leaving care end up homeless, in prostitution or on the wrong side of the law. Not only is it wrong and bad value for money for the taxpayer to spend nearly £1 billion a year for the 5,000 children in full-time care, it is also morally wrong that we are sending them out to a life often locked into poverty or crime because the state has failed to monitor their educational achievement or lack of it.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a compelling personal speech. Will he join me in paying tribute to the unsung heroes of family life and the care system, the grandparents and extended kin? They do an heroic job, often taking care of the children of their children who are afflicted with drug and alcohol problems or other family issues.
Mark Pritchard
I am very happy to do that. I would like the Government to be more imaginative and innovative in the tax system—as I think the Conservative Opposition said before the election—in recognising the work of grandparents and rewarding them for it, because where the family works well, it is obviously the best place for children to grow up.
I have huge respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), the new children’s Minister, as I did for his predecessor. I am excited about his promotion, because I know that he has great personal knowledge of fostering and adoption. This is an opportunity for him as an individual Minister and for the Government. As I said in a speech last week in the Chamber—albeit a speech on Europe—if we are not making a difference in this place, what is the point of being here? While there is strategic focus in the media, the Government and the nation as a whole, this is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the coalition Government to make a real difference by changing the way children are fostered, making changes to the adoption system and fundamentally changing the way we look after children in full-time care.
As I mentioned, my view is that everybody has something to contribute—everybody has a God-given ability or talent. Therefore I hope the Government will bring forward definitive and precise measures to tackle the issues arising from the mistakes made in the past—to be fair, under successive Governments—where children left care with the list of problems that I outlined earlier, costing the taxpayer even more money, by the way, as the homelessness bill, the criminal justice bill and the bill for getting people off drugs and alcohol rises.
Mr Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the profile of children’s issues is not lowered in the Department for Education? Does he support the Select Committee on Education recommendation that, as has happened with schools, a non-executive board member with expertise in this area should be appointed to the board of the Department?
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful for the Chairman of the Education Committee’s intervention. I note the excellent report and work that his Committee has done, and I commend that report to the House and for wider reading. To be honest, I have not really thought about that issue, but I am guided by his wisdom and expertise, and I am happy to discuss it with him.
Briefly, I note that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned training. That is absolutely right. Although the majority of social workers do a great job, my experience was pretty mixed, frankly. That is sometimes down to resources—fair enough—but it is also down to training. I would like to see root-and-branch reform of the way in which we train our social workers, so that they are not driven only by targets or political correctness, but are freed up to use their common sense. I want to see a bit more licence in the system for people of experience, not just graduates fresh out of university—although that is important as well—so that we have a mix and a range of people, perhaps from other professions, attracted as mature social workers, with their own family experiences, to ensure that the provision of care and the quality of care is improving all the time.
There can also sometimes be institutional inertia when we talk about care packages and care groups looking at individual cases, with multiple agencies perhaps taking too long to take decisions on individual children’s lives. Perhaps we could streamline the way in which agencies take such decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) suggested, it is important that all the relevant groups have people in them who can take decisions quickly, efficiently and effectively.
As we move towards the elections for police and crime commissioners, I hope that we can focus the minds of our new commissioners, whether they are from the left or the right, because we need police forces to take a fresh look at this matter. I note that West Mercia police has placed a particular emphasis on transgender crime. All crime is wrong, and transgender crime is wrong, but I suspect that it is not as widespread as child abuse and child exploitation. I would hope that a more strategic focus can be adopted as a result of this debate and of some of the headlines that we have seen over the past few days. We as a Government have a responsibility to care for every child in the care system, and I hope that this debate will move that forward.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate on child sexual exploitation. However, I have to say at the outset that, like the Chair of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I am disappointed that the present children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), has not been on the Treasury Bench throughout the debate. I appreciate that he has been here for the past hour.
I was also surprised to be told that I would be responding to the debate as shadow Minister on behalf of the Opposition, as the lead on this matter is obviously with the Department for Education. However, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the whole debate and to the contributions from Members on both sides of the House on this important subject. I also recognise the special role of Back-Bench debates.
This is a timely debate, and I am pleased that it has consistently focused on the victims of exploitation, on what we can and should do to support them and on what needs to be done to learn from current cases to prevent abuse in the future. As we have heard today, sexual exploitation takes many forms and needs to be understood within the wider context of physical and sexual abuse. It is important to recognise the different situations in which children are exploited, because abuse is often not recognised for what it is.
This has been a good debate, and I want to respond to some of the contributions that have been made. The experience and knowledge that Members have demonstrated has been first class. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport spoke about her long engagement with these issues. The ex-Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, brought his experience of the past few years to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke of his experience in Nottingham, and of the need for a cultural change.
The Chair of the Select Committee and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, went through some of the recommendations in his Committee’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostitution and the global sex trade. He provided the House with his particular focus on the matter. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) described his experience of working with the police. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) told the House of his first-hand experience of being in care.
Many Members described constituency issues, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who talked about issues in Wales and about the power that insurance companies have commanded in recent inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and talked about some of the shocking revelations in his constituency. The hon. Members for Stourbridge, for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) also described what was happening in their constituencies.
I want to comment on the contributions of other Members who brought their specialist knowledge to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) talked about her work with incest survivors and paid tribute to those who were strong enough to get their voices heard. We should of course thank them for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about her experience as a prosecutor of sexual offences, while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about what was happening in Birmingham.
We have encountered a great wealth of experience in the many hours of our discussion this afternoon. We need to remember that neither perpetrators nor victims are easily defined, although we know that certain groups are particularly vulnerable and that the reality is that young women from all different social groups are exposed to sexual violence and are vulnerable to exploitation. It is equally unwise to generalise about the perpetrators. In the media—the hon. Member for Keighley raised the issue, too—much has been made of the prevalence of grooming within certain Asian communities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East said, in reporting what the Children’s Commissioner had said, sexual exploitation extends far beyond any particular community or ethnicity. By trying to identify typical perpetrators, we risk missing many others.
Indeed, we need to remember that most child sexual exploitation is done either by a child’s peer or by a young adult. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study found that 65% of sexual abuse was conducted by the under-18s, while a Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre sample of 1,200 known perpetrators found that where the age was known, over half were under 24.
Over the last year, we have seen a number of high-profile cases of abuse and exploitation. Obviously, there has been the Jimmy Savile case, and also the fresh allegations of abuse at the north Wales care homes. We have seen the practice of grooming and sexual exploitation occurring in several towns, most notably Rochdale and Derby, where vulnerable young women were abused by networks of men and then used to recruit new victims. These cases are themselves shocking and the public interest that they have provoked is entirely understandable. However, it is important that this debate goes beyond these high-profile examples.
The really shocking truth is that child abuse and exploitation is far too common. We have already heard in this debate the comments of the Deputy Children’s Commissioner that
“sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country.”
The NSPCC’s 2009 survey on the prevalence and impact of child maltreatment found that 5% of under-16s reported coerced sexual acts. That is one in 20 of our young people. A YouGov poll commissioned by the End Violence Against Women coalition found that 29% of 16 to 18-year-old girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching at school.
We know that a number of inquiries and pieces of research have either already been conducted or are now under way. There are the investigations into Jimmy Savile’s conduct at the BBC and other institutions, and the inquiry into the Waterhouse inquiry, while the Deputy Children’s Commissioner is in the process of conducting an inquiry into the culture of grooming. The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into localised grooming, and the Education Committee has just completed an inquiry into child protection. The NSPCC has conducted a number of excellent pieces of research. I would also like to acknowledge two pieces of research from Barnardo’s: “Puppet on a String” and “Cutting them free: How is the UK progressing in protecting its children from sexual exploitation?” Then there is the excellent work done by CEOP, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind”, which has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport referred to the joint inquiry of all-party parliamentary group for runaway and missing children and adults and the all-party parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers. A joint report into children who go missing from care has been produced under my hon. Friend’s able chairing.
Now that we actually have both Ministers in their places on the Front Bench—they have seen half the debate each—perhaps I could ask the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), even though he has already spoken, to provide a response in writing to the following issues. First, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Department for Education claimed to have accepted all 11 recommendations contained in the Children’s Commissioner’s preliminary report, so it would be helpful to know how far the Government have got in implementing those recommendations.
Secondly, support and treatment for victims is a key issue, which the hon. Member for Strangford raised. The NSPCC has identified an estimated shortfall in the provision of therapeutic services of between 51,000 and 88,000. Is either Minister aware of that shortfall, and can either of them tell us what is being done to deal with it?
Thirdly, given that the NHS is currently being reorganised, can either Minister tell us which organisation will be responsible for giving care and support to abused children within the new structures? Where will statutory responsibility for child protection lie following the demise of the primary care trusts?
Fourthly, local safeguarding children boards are key structures, and when they fail children are left particularly vulnerable. The CEOP inquiry, to which Members have referred today, found that
“Most LSCBs do not fulfil the pivotal role prescribed for them in statutory guidance in respect of child sexual exploitation.”
Can one of the Ministers explain what the Government have done to improve the performance of those boards? Thursday’s elections for police and crime commissioners have been mentioned; how will the role of the new PCCs support the boards, and what work has been done to encourage PCCs to promote and engage with them?
Diana Johnson
No. I am very short of time.
Although children’s services are another key component of the process of keeping our children safe, many councils are being forced to slash the budgets of those services. In my home city of Hull, the council’s budget has been cut by 20% during the current Parliament. What assessment have the Government made of the effects of those cuts on the performance of local safeguarding children boards?
The Government have scaled down the child protection regime to what they call a common-sense level, although organisations such as the NSPCC and experts including Lord Bichard challenged them on some of their plans. I hope that Ministers will take a moment to consider the number of children who have not been protected by common sense in some of the cases that have been discussed today. I hope that they will also have a look at the changes in the criminal records regime, which will restrict information sharing.
Diana Johnson
No. I am going to continue my speech.
Let us take the example of a schoolteacher who has been barred from working with children by the Independent Safeguarding Authority following a series of corroborated allegations at different schools, none of which has been reported to the police. Let us imagine that that man volunteers to help with drama at another school in a different local authority area, where he works with the same group of children each week under the day-to-day supervision of a teacher. As he is under day-to-day supervision, he will no longer be considered to be in regulated activity. Will a Minister confirm that the school will no longer be required to obtain a CRB check, and that even if it obtains an enhanced CRB check, it will still be explicitly forbidden to be told about the man’s barred status, as he will not be taking part in regulated activity? Would not most parents be horrified to learn about that? I hope that Ministers will reflect on it.
I also hope that the Government will think again about their reluctance to allow a single inquiry to collate information from the many inquiries that I have already mentioned. We have 11 recommendations from the Children’s Commissioner, five from CEOP, 40 from the Education Committee and 31 from the joint APPG inquiry, and a host of inquiries are yet to report. I hope that as the Government receive that further series of reports in the coming months, they will be prepared to consider the Opposition’s call for a single overarching report. Today the Care Leavers’ Association called for a comprehensive national investigation of past abuse in the care system, adding its voice to many others.
In the meantime, there are real questions to be answered about what mechanisms exist to co-ordinate cross-departmental work and understanding of child exploitation. The confusion over who would be on the Government Front Bench today probably highlighted that. Cross-departmental work is never more important than when it challenges the culture that allows abuse and sexual exploitation to go unrecognised, unchallenged and unreported.
Grooming and sexual exploitation are facilitated by a culture in which sexual violence is normalised. The YouGov poll that I mentioned earlier found that 71% of young people regularly witnessed sexualised name-calling, and the findings of studies have suggested that up to 40% have been exposed to sexual content on phones, known as “sexting”. We need to appreciate the link between the prevalence of that sexual culture and an acceptance of abuse. An NSPCC study found that one in three girls and 16% of boys had reported some form of sexual partner violence.
The cases referred to ChildLine showed that time and again young people did not realise they were in an abusive relationship, and when they did, they blamed themselves for the situation. Good work is being done to support young people in making good choices and empowered decisions about their relationships, but we need to do more. I commend to the children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the excellent work of the End Violence Against Women coalition campaign project, Schools Safe 4 Girls. I hope the Minister will think about meeting that group to discuss the excellent work it is doing. I know that there are individual Government programmes, and I applaud them, but there is no sense of this work being brought together. We need to look at the issue of personal, social, health and economic education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned. It is a vital issue that needs to be addressed in schools.
Finally, will the children’s Minister confirm today that the Department for Education has disbanded its expert working group on sexual exploitation and has no lead person on violence against women and girls?
Nicola Blackwood
I thank everybody who has contributed so expertly and powerfully to today’s debate. While not wanting in any way to imply having favourites, I would particularly like to mention my co-sponsors, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their powerful contributions not only today, but outside this place. Although the majority of children grow up safe from harm, victims of child sexual exploitation experience the most terrible abuses, and this issue will remain firmly at the top of our agenda for the foreseeable future as more victims come forward and more perpetrators are prosecuted.
We need to see strong leadership from our Government. I hope that Ministers have listened carefully to the serious concerns raised by Members on both sides of the House. I will not hide the fact that I had expected to be addressing the children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), throughout the debate, but I will not despair. I will put my trust in his ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), to take up, with urgency and vigour, the issues of victim identification, data, local provision of multi-agency hubs and the need better to support victims through the court process, as well as the other important issues raised in the debate, and to bring the children’s Minister completely up to speed on all the matters raised today. I am certain that our trust in him will not prove to have been misplaced.
I hope that, if just one message comes out of today’s debate, it is that perpetrators who prey on vulnerable children will be prosecuted, that victims who come forward will be believed and protected, and that we, their representatives, are doing everything we can to make that happen. We have heard today that that is not happening in all our constituencies, and that not every area feels it can trust its local authorities and representatives. The Government can be proud that they have done much through their child sexual exploitation strategy, but not all local areas are implementing that yet, and we need to have strong leadership from the Department for Education and the other Departments in order to drive that through. Local people need to see that happening, so they can have faith that action is being taken.
The issue of child sexual exploitation will be in our newspapers for some time to come as people are prosecuted through the court process. We need to see a sense of urgency among our Ministers and in every Department. I hope the proposal for an inter-ministerial group will be considered. It is backed by Barnardo’s and would help to ensure reforms are driven through across every Department area.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of child sexual exploitation.
Extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to table this petition on behalf of my constituents, asking the House of Commons to urge the Government to examine seriously the feasibility of bringing the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington. The petitioners and I believe that would help attract businesses to the area and help my constituents to travel to work in other parts of the region. They pay for the Metro through their council tax but they do not get the full benefit of it. This petition is accompanied by the names of 417 people who have signed a petition along the same lines as that collected by Sun FM.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West constituency and the surrounding areas,
Declares that there are inadequate public transport links for residents in Washington to access the rest of the Tyne and Wear area, increasing reliance on personal transport and reducing employment and economic opportunities for the town and its residents.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to seriously explore the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to the town of Washington utilising the old Leamside railway line.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001131]
Printed Photo ID Market
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be joined again by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). I believe this is the second time we have been the last two standing prior to a recess—I apologise, but that is the way it is. I raised this issue on the Floor of the House earlier this year, and lurking in the background is the Minister who responded to that debate but who shall remain nameless. There has been some movement since I last raised the matter, and today’s Minister will be well aware of the widespread correspondence from many MPs across this House. I firmly believe that what is being proposed represents a fundamental misuse of public money to support the post office network—I have said that before and I continue to say it. The Government urgently need to address the situation, so that the private sector and the Post Office can be strengthened and can happily co-exist.
I want briefly to summarise to the House the background to this unhappy situation and to outline how the Government can and should intervene to allow private sector photographers and the whole post office network, not just the few, to thrive in an environment of co-existence. In 2009, the Labour Government decided to award a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract to provide identity pictures for driving licences to the Post Office. That was awarded without a business impact assessment or competitive tender. The contract took effect on 1 April 2010, when the Post Office started to capture ID pictures for the DVLA in about 750 urban high street offices using expensive Cogent equipment. Consequently, a large portion of the private sector printed photographic market has been removed and taxpayers’ money is threatening to undermine private sector jobs in the photographic industry. The contract will end next year, and the Government have just announced that the Post Office will provide the front office counter services—FOCS—for the DVLA, as a result of the tender launched this year. Of course, that will have a knock-on effect in respect of others moving into providing photographs, such as those for passports.
The majority of outlets in the photographic industry are dependent on the official printed ID photo market for their survival. For some retailers, ID photos can equate to about 60% or more of their annual revenue. The private sector professional photographic industry, represented by the PMA—it was known as the Photo Marketing Association—includes: Kodak Express; Fuji images; Snappy Snaps; outlets such as Photo-Me and Jessops; and more than 1,500 independent photographers nationwide. We can add to that the vast network of photo booths, which benefit many retailers, as they provide an additional income, and adorn some of the areas in the House of Commons. Interestingly, hundreds of post office and sub-post offices have been receiving millions of pounds for having these units in their establishments. It is estimated that the welfare and livelihoods of more than 5,000 professional private sector photographers who work on the high street and in other networks are at risk due to a taxpayer-subsidised body endangering private sector jobs. The headquarters of Photo-Me are in my constituency, in the village in which I live, and the company is looking at sacking perhaps 60 staff fairly shortly.
I am grateful to Photo-Me’s chief operating officer, Olivier Gimpel, who has, unsurprisingly, been pushing the point and ensuring I am aware of it. Private sector photographic industry representatives have been campaigning hard to mitigate the effect of the decision and have sought to work with the Government, the Post Office and the DVLA to find a workable solution. At a meeting between the photographic industry and the director of finance and strategy at the DVLA on 16 July, the DVLA made it clear that it wishes future ID pictures to arrive in a digital format. It proposes a solution that would see a photo retailer, studio or booth sending photographs directly to the DVLA, with the Post Office taking pictures, too. However, in order to guarantee work for the Post Office, as the front office counter service provider, the photographic industry has proposed a better and, I believe, higher quality and cost-effective scanning solution. That will not only meet the quality requirements of the DVLA but preserve jobs at the Post Office and ensure the survival of the private sector photographic industry. The Post Office would in future scan printed ID pictures and thus deliver a digital image.
Discussions between the DVLA and photo industry are ongoing, and following the July workshop it was proposed that another take place on 27 November, so I am hopeful. I know the Minister will want that to be a success and I share that sentiment. If the Post Office is asked to scan printed ID pictures it will guarantee work for all post offices in the future, not only those 750 branches that have had the expensive and large camera technology installed.
I, and I suspect many other hon. Members, will wish to see all our respective sub-postmasters benefit from a solution that allows them to enjoy the ability to scan printed photographs with inexpensive, easily operated and compact equipment in their little post offices. For example, I do not want my own Bookham post office or any Mole Valley post office to start complaining that potential customers have started to travel to Guildford to process ID pictures, as that is where the nearest camera is. It is miles away and not easily reached from many parts of my constituency. I want my local post offices to benefit from the market. In fact, all 11,800 post offices could.
The solution proposed by the photographic industry is best, wide-ranging and cheap and it would work. What matters is that the Post Office should be appointed as the FOCS, which has happened. It should not become a total substitute for the private photographer. My colleagues should understand that the proposed PMA solution would have a positive impact for the whole country and for 11,800 post offices, not just 750.
As a Conservative who wishes to see the high street and our private sector grow, I find it worrying that subsidised, expensive technology is marginalising private sector high street photographers and will demolish their market. They are, after all, small business people who have had the foresight to devise a solution that delivers the digital agenda, saves thousands of private sector jobs and provided virtually all post offices with guaranteed future work. It must be the nation’s choice.
I have to tell the Minister that I find it unacceptable that the DVLA has in the past sought to create unnecessary hurdles in an attempt to derail the solution. It appears to me that there was and perhaps still is an attempt simply to wave the problem to one side, which is why I am here tonight. In addition, the DVLA seems to be claiming that it is not prescribing how the picture should be taken and that the front office counter service is responsible for setting the method. I believe that it has been setting new and apparently random photo resolution requirements that do not appear to be in line with British or international standards but provide a hurdle that the outside private sector photographers could find difficult to overcome. I have asked the Home Office a written question on this matter and received an answer that is oblique, to put it mildly. I used to specialise in oblique answers when I was a Minister, but this one takes the prize.
To sum up, I want the Minister to appreciate five important points that I think will offer a solution. First, the DVLA wants digital ID images of a high quality. The photographic industry’s scanner solution provides that. Secondly, the DVLA front office counter service tender necessitates Cogent scanners. The photographic industry’s proposal will use those scanners and not require more spending, or the maintenance of expensive Cogent digital camera equipment. Thirdly, the DVLA wants photographs of a high quality that meet strict criteria. That is met by the printed ID pictures that are taken by photographic specialist professionals. Fourthly, the DVLA wants a paperless office at Swansea. I understand that in reality, from what I can pick up, the DVLA actually intends to keep paper records of applications, including pictures. The industry’s solution, however, would satisfy the paperless office desire.
Fifthly and finally, we as a nation must value our Post Office. The photographic industry’s solution will strengthen the relationship and will better support the many thousands of post offices. Many of these are suburban, or in my case rural, but do not and cannot be expected to host the expensive and large Cogent equipment. However, they can adopt, adapt and operate simple, much cheaper scanners. The industry’s solution will strengthen the Post Office’s future right across the UK.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter very carefully in the next few days, and I would be delighted to have a meeting to discuss it with him because a short debate such as this does not allow an exchange of ideas and opinions. It is vital that we keep the industry moving.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing the debate. I know that this issue is important to him, because this is the second debate that he has secured on this topic in the past 10 months. In the previous debate, the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) promised to meet my hon. Friend and a delegation from the photographic industry. That meeting took place in March and further meetings have since taken place with officials from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I think we now have a very good understanding of the situation and I would like to set out some of the key issues concerning the driving licence and the driver’s photo.
The DVLA plays an important role both in law enforcement and road safety. The photographs that have been incorporated in driving licences since 1998 provide critical support for the police and other enforcement agencies by linking the person behind the wheel with the entitlements to drive that they hold—or perhaps do not hold. The photographs held on the DVLA database are just as important as those on the licence itself, because the police have direct digital access to them for motoring enforcement. The quality of the images is therefore paramount. That helps the police recognise repeat offenders, and just as importantly it makes it easier for ordinary motorists who—in the past, and sometimes still today—have been asked to take their documents to police stations. The Driving Standards Agency also has digital access to photographs on the DVLA database. A high-quality image is important for all of them, as I am sure my hon. Friend fully appreciates, given his comments.
DSA driving test examiners have in recent years seen an increase in impersonations or substitutions at driving tests. High-resolution images that can be made larger on screen provide greater confidence when checking the identity of an individual and counter the direct challenge to road safety. The quality of images has increased greatly over recent years. Almost all photographs are now taken, stored and transmitted digitally. The industry itself has been transformed. That change has been driven not by Government intervention, but by customers and the way that they choose to use the products on offer. At the same time, these new technologies have hugely reduced the cost of taking photographs. However, there is a downside for organisations such as the DVLA and the police, in that such photographs are open to manipulation, especially if taken by the individual using their own equipment.
The DVLA continually seeks cost-effective ways of improving the quality of images that it receives and of increasing convenience for customers while meeting the Government’s drive for “digital by default”. An example is the face-to-face service available at post offices which, since 2010, has included taking photographs at the counter. That service is now available at 752 outlets, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and has proved to be a simple and cost-effective solution for customers. The quality of the photographs taken is controlled by software in the equipment and face-to-face supervision by the counter staff. The process adopted for renewing driving licences with photographs that are 10 years old, for example, takes just over three minutes. That includes taking the photograph, capturing any data changes, collecting payment and transmitting all the information securely and electronically to the DVLA. The driving licence lands on the customer’s doormat typically within two or three days of their arriving at the post office counter.
There are also major efficiency benefits for the DVLA. The transactions can be fully automated and, because of the personal supervision at the counter, there are virtually no rejections of data owing to the quality of the image. The service is a major improvement. Feedback from customers has been hugely positive: over 80% state that they would recommend the service to family and friends.
Alongside that new customer channel, the DVLA introduced in 2011 a web channel for direct customer use. In those transactions, on agreement with the applicant, photographs already submitted to and verified by the Identity and Passport Service are reused by the DVLA. There are constraints on the age of such photographs, but it allows the public to make the transaction from home in an entirely convenient and effective way.
Those two channels are very much in line with the Government’s digital strategy, which was published at the start of November by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Digital transactions are securely and conveniently undertaken and are making significant savings across Government. Web channels have been in place since 2005 for first applications for driving licences and replacement driving licences, and for new driving licences for the over-70s and for those wishing to notify a change of address, but in the choice of the three available channels we have seen a migration from paper to the web over the past two years. Some 18% of customers now choose the web, 28% use counter services and the remaining 54% of transactions are dealt with on paper.
The web channels and the counter service currently sit alongside the older paper channels, but those channels are inconvenient for customers. The forms are less easy to navigate than their electronic equivalents, which have in-built checking systems, and customers must obtain photographs separately and post them along with their forms. Processing paper copies is vastly more time consuming and costly for the DVLA than electronic requests, especially for rejected transactions, which are inconvenient and expensive for all concerned.
Introducing the new web and counter services for 10-year driving licence renewals has saved the DVLA at least 200 staff and brought a financial saving of around £5 million each year for the Government. At the same time, the quality of photographs, the accuracy of data and customer satisfaction have increased and the number of rejections has fallen. Continuing and expanding the digital and automated channels forms an important part of achieving the DVLA’s target of reducing its annual running costs by £100 million, against its 2010 baseline, by the end of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend will have seen this morning’s announcement of the Post Office as the successful bidder for the DVLA front-office counter service contract. I know that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that award, because it is an important part of ensuring that post offices and sub-post offices, both urban and rural, have an opportunity to provide a valuable service within our local communities. However, the contract has been let as non-exclusive specifically to avoid the creation of a monopoly supplier of a range of services to Government, including photographs, and to allow collaboration with the photographic industry to continue. I believe that my hon. Friend has already received an assurance on this aspect in response to his recent parliamentary question. I assure him that we do not want a monopoly supplier, because that is not in the best interests of customers, the Post Office, or the photographic industry in general.
The DVLA and I do not wish to create monopolies, but we do want to provide choices for customers and to allow the market to determine the solutions for the future to support industry in moving in the right direction. We want to take all the opportunities we can through advances in technology to improve customer services in quality and cost; to use digital technology to reduce manual administrative tasks while improving security and seeking automation of processes from one end to the other to improve accuracy and quality of data; and to actively pursue the wider Government agenda to move to “digital by default” wherever possible.
Where there are new opportunities, there are always challenges of change, and changes that are enabled by new technologies can be disruptive for existing industries. That is why the DVLA needs to work with the photographic industry to enable this transition from the old to the new in order to develop a solution that works for the DVLA and other Government agencies but, equally importantly, that provides the best solution and retains choice of provider for the public.
The meetings and workshops between the DVLA and the photographic industry have identified two possible solutions for exploration. The contract award to the Post Office and the solution that it has in place now needs to be considered as part of the next workshop to assess how these solutions interact with or complement the counter services contract. There are two major providers to be considered: first, the professional photography sector, which already takes digital photographs and in many cases will need to make only relatively simple adjustments to its processes to transmit the photographs in order to interface with DVLA systems; and secondly, self-service photo booths, which may need the phasing in of additional technology to meet the full digital approach to benefit both customers and the DVLA best. As my hon. Friend said, the next workshop to take that collaboration forward is scheduled for a fortnight’s time. It will be attended by representatives from the self-service booth sector as well as those from the professional photography sector—specialist high street chains and independents.
My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary formally initiated that collaborative effort, and it would be extremely helpful to continue the work with a further meeting between my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and Department for Transport Ministers. That would be an important opportunity for us to review progress following the meeting with industry representatives towards the end of this month. It will be important for Government to work with the industry to develop solutions that are less expensive, more convenient and, equally importantly, maintain choice of provision for customers, which is the nub of my hon. Friend’s argument. I hope that he will accept the invitation to that meeting; I suspect that he will, because he requested one in the closing moments of his speech.
The crucial thing is to get the interested parties and my hon. Friend around the table so that we can begin fully to thrash out the alternatives, the opportunities and the different proposals; see what can be done to take forward a system that will provide not only choice but value for money both for taxpayers and for customers; and ensure that we have a plethora of different outlets to provide a service whose technological improvements, which we cannot afford to not keep abreast of, are advancing dramatically. At the same time, we cannot be seen to be creating monopolies that will undermine the vibrant role that the private sector, which has played such an important role in the photographic sector in the past, can continue to play.
I am confident that our meeting will be productive and useful for all sides. I look forward to it so that we can address the control and security improvements required by the DVLA in order to address fully the fraud and ID security challenges that it faces. It will also provide an opportunity to discuss the variety and freedom of choice offered by the private sector’s contribution, in its different facets, to a service that is used so often by so many of our constituents up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Navigation on unregulated watercourses
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Economy (North-East)
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I know that I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we are delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am sure that there will be excellent behaviour from all of us. There is no regional Minister any more and, sadly, as yet no Minister from a north-east constituency in the Government, but we welcome the Minister today.
There are two subjects that I feel passionately about, but I will restrain myself and not talk about those today. First, I do not expect the Minister to announce that she is changing the misguided decision to abolish the regional development agency, splitting the region in half. In fact, it would not be sensible to do so, having gone through two years of reorganisation. I hope that my party learns the lesson that unnecessary reorganisation on the not-invented-here principle is not a good basis for policy.
The second thing that I am not going to talk about is the not misguided but masochistic economic policy that the Government are imposing. The contrast between President Obama’s growth path since May 2010 and our own is striking. Equally, it is a bit much to expect the Minister to contradict the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one of her early outings.
It is ironic that I was accused on BBC Newcastle radio today of coming to Parliament just to take part in a talking shop. I asked what was the point of Parliament if not for talking. Hopefully, there will be some practical outcomes from today’s discussion, and at least some greater understanding.
I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we regard the north-east economy as an asset for the UK, not as a problem for the UK. The north-east has a consistent trade surplus that is higher than the UK average, faster growth in exports than the UK average, and we have some great companies, from cars to chemicals. We also have world-class universities. Equally, we do not shy away from highlighting some big problems: income per head and education are lower and unemployment and non-employment are higher. Those are the long-term problems, and there are short-term problems too: construction is flat and business confidence is fragile. I was sent the Lloyds purchasing managers index data for the fourth quarter, showing that it is dipping in that quarter. There are cyclical as well as structural problems.
I do not hide my own interest. I want to look at practical issues. The test of this debate, for me, is whether it makes a difference in South Shields to the unemployed youngster seeking work, the small business seeking finance and the shopkeeper seeking renewal of the town centre. In the 10 or 12 minutes that are available to me, I want to highlight five issues that I think successful regions around the world put at the heart of their economic policy. I want to make some specific points. First, there is not a successful region or city in the world that is not connected to the rest of its nation and the rest of the world. One in seven jobs in the north-east depend on foreign investment, never mind British investment. That puts issues such as transport high up the agenda. Some of my colleagues will speak about transport, especially rail and road. As the Member in whose constituency a large part of the Port of Tyne sits, I know that ports are important. The Port of Tyne need its freight capacity strengthening.
On transport, the figure provided by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association is striking. I am delighted by the Crossrail investment in London—£2,750 per head being spent on Londoners and their transport—but in the north-east the figure is not £1,000, £500 or £50, but £5 per head. I am not saying that the Minister needs to say that that figure should be £2,750, but honestly, £5 per head is not consistent with our needs. We are not asking to be funded on the same level as the capital city, but we do think that that is a problem.
Colleagues will talk about airports. Newcastle airport provides 7,500 jobs and deals with 4.3 million passengers. For anyone watching, we have airport capacity and we can increase that without much argument. A transatlantic route for the north-east would be welcome. People say that a revenue-neutral tweak in air passenger duty would make a difference, relieving congestion in southern airports.
I want to make a different point, which I do not think will be raised elsewhere. We have five great universities with a large number of fantastic foreign students, and historically those students have created businesses in the north-east. Every university vice-chancellor will tell the Minister that the Government’s policy on student visas is barmy. We are keeping out of the country people who want to learn from and contribute to it. We are reducing the number of students who come here from abroad and we are preventing them from staying here to work, not to claim benefits. I am glad to see, from the honesty in the Minister’s face, that she recognises my point. For the record, I will not claim that she has nodded in agreement, but she certainly nodded in recognition of the point. Hon. Members should not take it from me. My reading of Home Office’s own study—I should like the Minister to confirm this in her response—is that the immigration cap for foreign students will cost the British economy £2.4 billion a year. This self-defeating policy has nothing to do with tackling illegal immigration and it is injurious, not just to the so-called golden triangle of the south-east, but to our region.
Secondly, successful regions around the world make the most of their global links and develop their local assets. Every city and region has its own history. We have great traditions. In my constituency, those traditions include shipbuilding and mining, although shipbuilding is almost reduced to a nugatory level. Other hon. Members will talk about that. I want to make a point about how we build on our manufacturing history in respect of energy policy, which is no longer the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, although I am sure that she will say that there is close co-operation with the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The energy revolution is potentially transformative for the north-east, and although it does not just include renewables, they will play a significant part. We have strength from Narec in Blyth, right through the Port of Tyne in South Shields, down to Teesside. The north-east chamber of commerce estimates that that could be worth 40,000 jobs and £6 billion in the next 20 years. However, Government energy policy is a complete mess: it is a pushmi-pullyu or hokey cokey. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) says one thing and the Secretary of State contradicts him.
It is obvious that long-term investment by business needs long-term clarity and certainty from Government. There is fast reaction to clarity from Government. In October 2010, the Government set out an offshore wind strategy and Siemens and others responded quickly with investment, but now they are halting that investment because they do not know what the Government’s game is. The Energy Bill is coming up, so for goodness’ sake let us make it a model of how countries can, on a bipartisan basis, set long-term strategy for business to invest.
People are saying, “Oh well, we have been in recession. We may be going into a triple-dip recession. We can’t afford to go green.” That argument is nonsense. The argument should be that now is precisely the time to go green, but we cannot do so if the private sector does not know what the public sector is doing and if one bit of the public sector does not know what another bit is doing.
Thirdly, people should stop complaining about public spending draining the private economy—the so-called crowding out of private investment. Government policy so far has been framed on the idea that the more public spending there is, the less private spending there is. That is nonsense: we need only think about Britain’s strength in pharmaceuticals. The integrated purchasing power of the national health service is one reason why Britain has a strong pharmaceuticals industry; one has fed off the other.
I think that all hon. Members agree: no one says that there will be as much public money around as there used to be. We argue about the speed of reduction. What we spend needs to have maximum economic impact. It is not just a social policy, but an economic one. I want to make two points in that regard. One is about the benighted regional growth funds. Honestly, it is one thing to cut the funding by two thirds, from the old regional development agencies to the regional growth fund, but on the figures I have—I would like the Minister to confirm this—of the £1.4 billion announced in rounds 1 and 2 of the regional growth fund, the amount that has left the Department’s bank account is £60 million. Not £600 million—nearly half the total figure—but £60 million has reached the companies that won the competition. Thirty companies that won in rounds 1 and 2 have subsequently pulled out because of the delays in Government decision making. Can we have some clarity and determination to get this thing sorted out? We will reach the next election with winners in round 3 still without their money—I do not want to give the Government political advice, but it is deeply worrying for our economy if we cannot get allocated money out of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Secondly, connected to that, public decisions have a big private benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) did an extraordinary job in bringing people together for the Hitachi contract to build 600 or 700 carriages in Newton Aycliffe. That was a massive decision by a Japanese company and a massive vote of confidence in the people of Newton Aycliffe, but we must ensure that the supply chain feeds that investment, and that will not happen by the elixir of market forces alone—there is work to be done. In the same way, Nissan is a massive employer in the north-east, but MPs in Sunderland and elsewhere would say that an important part of the benefit comes from the supply chain, and we must get that right for the Hitachi investment as well.
The fourth area, which I feel strongly about, is that successful regions around the world do not allow significant sections of the population to fall behind the rest. They especially do not allow a large group of young long-term unemployed to become a drain on their own livelihood and on the wider economy. The economic inequality of unemployment is a massive issue for the future of our country. The figures are extraordinary: 270,000 young people have not been in work for more than 18 months, with a further 180,000 not in work for more than six months—450,000 youngsters unemployed for more than six months. In my constituency alone the claimant count is 380 and throughout the north-east it is 12,000, and that count underestimates by 35% the number of those who are not in employment, education or training. If I may explain to the Minister, 35% of 18 to 25-year- olds do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled—they are unemployed and not in education or training, but they do not claim the benefits, so the claimant count underestimates the total.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of young people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months has risen by 750% in the past year alone?
David Miliband
I was not aware of that figure from my hon. Friend’s constituency, but it speaks to the point that I am asking the Minister to address. The Minister’s own party leader has said on behalf of the Government that he wants to abolish long-term youth unemployment. That is excellent, but people who say that they want to abolish long-term youth unemployment have a responsibility to put in place the policies to do so, not least because young people who hear that message from the Government will feel a double betrayal—it is one thing to be long-term unemployed; it is another to be told that the Government will help them out of it, but then do not do so.
I beg the Minister not to read out a script from the Department for Work and Pensions that tells me that 150,000 people are getting a wage subsidy. I promise the hon. Lady that they are not. First, the 150,000 is for a three-year programme; secondly, the level is set at £2,500, which has never in history produced the kind of reaction needed among employers. When the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) tried that in 1995 or 1996, he got a 3% take-up rate on a scheme of the same size, so I beg the Minister not to tell me that the Government will achieve that mass take-up of wage subsidies: they will not. I urge her not to tell me that apprenticeships are the answer: we know that less than 40% of apprenticeships are going to the under-25s, because 60% are jobs for adults relabelled as apprenticeships.
I urge the Minister not to tell me that work experience will make up for the lack of a guaranteed job at the end of nine, 12 or 18 months of unemployment. Although we welcome what the previous Employment Minister told us—that I think 35% of those who had had work experience got a job—he killed the future jobs programme on the grounds that only 50% of people coming out of it were getting a job. We welcome the effect of work experience, but let us not kid ourselves that it is the answer. The Under-Secretary can take away a serious message: certainly in my constituency, and more widely throughout the north-east, we want the power and the funds in our own hands, to suit the welfare-to-work programme to our own needs. The hon. Lady has an honourable history of talking about localism, and this area of welfare policy is a classic. The labour market in my constituency is completely different from the labour market in her constituency, and we cannot rely on a national sausage machine of welfare-to-work programmes. We need local flexibility to tackle the existing problems, especially for young people. The issue is economic, not social.
Finally, I think that all 20 of us in the Chamber agree that the future of our economy in the north-east, and of the British economy, is in innovation. I want to raise one issue about innovation, which is finance and how the financial services sector in Britain needs to be a spur for domestic industry and not only a global blood supply for financial services around the world. It is good that we are the global capital for financial services and I welcome the fact that the City of London is the blood supply for global financial services, but I want it to be the blood supply for the north-east’s businesses that want to invest and innovate. There is a problem.
The British Chambers of Commerce now agree that a British investment bank is the way forward, and it has suggested some interesting ideas. We should be thinking about not one, national, statist investment bank that is the whole answer to all our problems, but about how investment coalitions can be brought together—public and private sectors—at the local and regional levels. The experience of the regional growth fund shows the dangers of expecting one national institution to process the information; we need local engagement in finance for industry. As the banking sector shakes out, we have a big job to do to underpin regulation—we do not want to risk another financial crisis—but we cannot afford to strangle the flow of investment from financial services into businesses. That is the danger that I see at the moment.
I will have got my breath back from my run from the tube by the time I finish, but I will do so on the following note. What is interesting, if we look at the statistics, is that 640 businesses have been created in South Tyneside in the past year. That is quite a striking statistic. A figure I received yesterday is that 1,000 more people are self-employed than was the case two years ago. The sad thing is that that is in spite of Government policy, not because of it.
In the end we cannot mandate job creation and we cannot legislate for businesses to start up or for people to become self-employed, but we can support them. In the five areas that I have set out, we are not looking for handouts; we are looking for support. We are not asking the Minister to contradict the Chancellor’s spending envelope—I do not expect her to do that—but I do expect her to take on board practical, common-sense, innovative ideas that are necessary and that are brought forward with a passion. The Prime Minister last night talked about rebalancing the British economy, but one aspect of rebalancing, which unfortunately he did not talk about, is rebalancing so we get a better regional balance in the country. That is not a new issue—we have had issues of regional imbalance for a long time—but rebalancing the British economy has to mean strengthening the north-east and the northern economies. The interesting point is that such a rebalancing of the British economy can go hand in hand with a transition that is going on in the north-east economy at the moment. We lost our economy in the 1980s, we began rebuilding it in the 2000s and we need to complete the transition now, but if we are going to do so we need the help of Government and not the hindrance.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask everyone who wants to speak to stand and to keep standing, because a lot of you want to catch my eye and we want to ensure that we get this right? Thank you. My aim is to get everyone in. I could ask the Deputy Speaker for a formal sanction to impose a time limit but, given the array of talent before me and the fact that you are all extremely sensible, I am sure that you want to allow everyone else to get in. What I am trying to say is that, basically, it will be no more than four minutes each. If it is more than four minutes, I am afraid someone will lose out. After the next speaker, who will be Ian Swales, has spoken, I will announce the running order, so that you all know where you are going to be. The next three speakers are Ian Swales, Tom Blenkinsop and James Wharton. Please, no more than four minutes each.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this debate and on bringing his outstanding talents to the issue. As we all do, I see the difficult economic situation in our area, and it was brought home to me even more last year when I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain why the economy of Redcar and Cleveland was rated by the BBC and Experian as the weakest of 324 areas in the country. Middlesbrough and Hartlepool were 323rd and 322nd. Is that really the legacy that Labour wanted after 13 years of complete freedom to deliver their vision?
An entire sub-region was forgotten and neglected, not just in jobs and growth, but in many other ways. It struggled with an education system that was not delivering what employers wanted. It breaks my heart that the outstanding technical training provider, TTE, at South Bank in my constituency has 57 funded engineering training places for 16 to 18-year-olds that have not been taken up. Those opportunities are available in an area of high youth unemployment, but too many young people have left our education system without basic skills or aspiration.
That legacy came after a period of investment and growth from 1987 to 1997. After Margaret Thatcher’s famous walk in the wilderness at Stockton, the Teesside urban development corporation delivered some important projects. There were issues with the corporation, and I am far from being a Thatcherite, but I welcomed the state intervention that brought Teesside retail and leisure park, Hartlepool marina, the Stockton campus of Durham university, Stockton and Middlesbrough riverside developments, the Tees barrage and the Teesdale business park. The list went on, but suddenly it all stopped, and for 13 years very little happened.
The new Labour Government scrapped the urban development corporation and showed their obsession with regionalisation. Teesside became a fiefdom of Tyne and Wear. The regional referendum made no difference, and on it went. Even the ambulance service was moved. Three quarters of a million people were deemed not capable of running their own ambulances. The ludicrous regional fire control project followed, as did ONE. In the north of the region, it was One North East, but in my area it was known as “only Newcastle exists”. Shortly after being elected, I was at a meeting in the north-east discussing the fate of One North East assets. I was asked how that would affect my area, and I replied, “I don’t think there will be a problem; there aren’t any.”
Teesside is a proud and distinctive area, with a unique heritage, unique problems and unique opportunities. As far back as the 1960s, it was described by Redcliffe-Maud as a “functional economic market area.” That is why, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), I fought for a Tees Valley local enterprise partnership. I am delighted to see how well it is working, and congratulate it on its clarity of purpose, strong local links and powerful advocacy.
Although the north-east is the only UK region with a trade surplus, the Government know that a lot of help is still needed to clear up Labour’s mess. That is why they have done a huge amount since 2010. Enterprise zones throughout the region include three in my constituency alone—at Wilton, Kirkleatham and South Bank. There is a city deal in Newcastle and new offers of deals for Sunderland and Tees valley; ultra-fast broadband for Newcastle; education changes, including the pupil premium; huge growth in apprenticeships, which have doubled in my constituency; investment in rail and buses, enabling Teesport to put modern containers on the rail network; support for innovation with technical innovation centres, including the Centre for Process Innovation in my constituency; chemical and automotive supply chain initiatives; and, above all, the regional growth fund—a total of £284 million and 102 projects in the north-east, with 26,000 direct jobs and 47,000 indirect jobs. That represents the most projects in the country from all three rounds, and one third of the projects in the country from rounds 1 and 2.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s opinion of the regional development agency, which delivered big time for the Tees valley. On the regional growth fund, does he regret, as I do, the Government’s decision not to back our regional airport in the south of the region to create a new hub that would expand industry throughout the Tees valley?
Ian Swales
Clearly, the regional growth fund could not support every project, and I will be bidding for an extra round. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South will talk about the airport.
Two thirds of rounds 1 and 2 projects have been approved, and the money has already gone out or is ready to go out. The statistics that the right hon. Member for South Shields gave come from the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am member, and date from about nine months ago. Large parts of the country, including London and the south-east, have received virtually nothing from the regional growth fund. It is a serious regional policy to try to repair our manufacturing sector, which was ravaged during the past 13 years.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman is not out of order, but I want to point out that he has spoken for more than four minutes.
Ian Swales
I was trying to redress the balance, Mr Hollobone, because I know that many Opposition Members will speak.
There is a huge amount to do, and I hope that the Minister will respond to four issues. Carbon capture and storage could be a game changer for Teesside, not just in energy generation, but in supporting industrial carbon emitters; we have 18 of the top 30 in the UK in Teesside.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he said about the plight of his constituency’s economy being blamed on Tyne and Wear? His colleagues in local authorities there will greatly regret those sentiments. Frankly, they are misplaced.
Ian Swales
I want to correct that impression. I am not blaming the people in Tyne and Wear; I am talking about the balance of the regional development agency’s efforts.
The excellent north-east companies in the Energi Coast consortium have invested £400 million to attract offshore energy generation contracts, and we must ensure that that supply chain happens in the UK. I have lived in the north-east for 34 years, and spent 32 years of those in business, from being on the board of a large global business to running my own small business. I have been here for the past two years. I know what the issues are, and the Government are making an excellent attempt to tackle them. I am optimistic. We have a great region, great people, and not just a great past, but a great future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I will call the wind-ups at 10.40. The running order of those who were standing will be as follows: Tom Blenkinsop, James Wharton, Ronnie Campbell, Iain Wright, Sharon Hodgson, Helen Goodman, Ian Lavery, Julie Elliott, Alan Campbell, Phil Wilson and Pat Glass.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this timely and important debate. Only the other day, I told Andy McDonald, the Labour candidate for Middlesbrough, that I was thinking of mentioning skills, employment, youth unemployment, the working neighbourhood fund, welfare changes, One North East, the carbon capture and storage levy and so on, but given the time remaining, I will speak briefly and focus on four main issues.
First, Teesport needs to be fully connected to the rail freight network. Secondly, a high-quality electrified trans-Pennine link to Middlesbrough needs to be in place. Thirdly, the northern rail network needs new rolling stock. Fourthly, the Government should review the proposed high levies on freight, which will indirectly tax industry, and predominantly coke, coal, potash, chemical and steel manufacturers, which are the main primers on Teesside.
Since I was elected, I have battled for improvement and electrification of the rail line to Middlesbrough. Middlesbrough and the surrounding Tees area is the largest UK conurbation with no direct electrified service to London. The nearest railhead is Darlington. Electrification to Thornaby and Middlesbrough would enable commuters and industrialists to be at Teesside plants in under three hours from central London. That is crucial because Durham Tees Valley airport lost its London service some time ago.
Unfortunately, the Government have left Teesside out of the northern hub proposals and concentrated on core trans-Pennine services. As a result, Middlesbrough has been left in the rusty sidings. We know that the Department for Transport is conducting a study on that, but it must engage with industry first and not just perform a desk study. Passengers are crucial, but so is freight.
As well as massive chemical and steel complexes such as Teesside beam mill, which supplies beams for Redcar’s civic improvement scheme, Teesside is home to Teesport. The port covers an area of 200 hectares of land alongside the southern bank of the River Tees. Tees dock is a deep-water facility, some five miles from the sea, and Teesport handles steel, petrochemicals, manufacturing export and import, coal, potash mined from my constituency and retail items. It also handles over 6,000 ships a year, and its facilities include two container quays—one is 965 feet and the other is 1,180 feet—and there are roll-on, roll-off ferry facilities. Teesport handles 56 million tonnes of cargo annually.
We need rail improvement, therefore, to see that as much trade as possible to the midlands, Yorkshire, the north-west and Scotland is kept off the existing road network, which is a crucial point. The key issue is to upgrade the lines from Teesport to the east coast main line at Northallerton and Darlington, so that it can handle more container traffic and allow for piggy-backing of containers to increase capacity.
Given the lack of time, I shall end my speech there, so that other Members can get in.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his magnificent moustache.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this debate on an important issue for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
To respond to a few comments that have been made, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is vital that the supply chain for Hitachi at Newton Aycliffe is kept in the region and that it delivers the sort of growth that is brought to our area by Nissan, which is a Conservative legacy, with so many companies across the north-east benefiting from the work and investment that that brings to the region.
Teeside airport is a key transport hub, particularly for the south of the region. Although it is in need of a little care and attention, its owners have reiterated time and again their dedication to ensuring that it is a success. The airport was unsuccessful in the regional growth fund bid to develop some of its facilities as a freight hub terminal. However, the owners have thankfully confirmed their intention to go ahead with that investment, which will be welcomed by constituents of many hon. Members who are here this morning.
There are many good things about the north-east. As has been said, its exports have been growing faster than the national average rate. It has a positive balance of trade—some £2.58 billion—thanks in no small part to the chemical and process industry on Teesside. Recently, our region has had a lot of good news. The two LEPs, which better represent the region’s different parts—particularly that in the Tees valley—are off to a flying start. The Tees Valley LEP is working closely with the York and North Yorkshire LEP, and it has helped to deliver more than £100 million in regional growth fund money to our region in the last round of funding, with over 70% coming to the south of the region, which is a nice change. I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who is a champion for the south of the area. He fights hard to ensure that our voice is heard and that we get our fair share of the support that we need to be a success.
We have challenges as a region. Unemployment and youth unemployment are too high. However, unemployment has been decreasing this year, and we should all welcome that. The Government are doing lots of things that will benefit us, not least the increase by £1,100 in the personal allowance threshold for income tax, which will put more money in people’s pockets. Some 35,000 people in our region will benefit in April next year, and that money will be spent in our regional economy.
We have heard talk of the need for more control locally of how money is spent and how things are done, and the city deals present an opportunity for parts of our region to bid for that and secure it from the Government. The north-east has a very positive story to tell. There are challenges to overcome and things that need to be addressed, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, despite our political disagreements, we will continue to work together and fight for the best possible deal in the north-east and that we will find common ground through which we can put forward a clear, concise message, both to the Government and to those in political parties who are not currently in government, about what we want and need.
I hope that we can deliver a better future and continue to deliver improvements for all our constituents, and I welcome again the foresight of the right hon. Member for South Shields in calling this important debate at such a key time, as we head towards the autumn statement.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my comrade and right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing the debate. It is well overdue, and I am pleased that it is happening today.
What was the north-east in the past, and where did it come from? Those are easy questions. We had thousands of mines and miners digging coal—Blyth port was one of the biggest exporters of coal in Europe—and we had shipbuilding. We built ships galore; there were aircraft carriers and destroyers—you name it, the north-east built it. There was steel, which we lost, of course, but thank God it has come back again in Redcar. We even won the FA cup now and again—we do not win it now, but we used to. That is the north-east; it had character in those days. Everything was built around it, and we have to try and drive forward manufacturing again today. We cannot rely on the boom and bust of the City any more; we have to rely on manufacturing, which we should have been relying on, and we have to focus on growth all the time. The north-east is ready and waiting for that.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Narec, which I looked around on Friday with industrialists. It is absolutely fantastic. A big shed is being built—we were not allowed in it, because they are still working on it—in which blades of 100 metres in size will be tested. At the moment, the biggest blades are 50 metres. The testing centre will be used and the blades will be put offshore—they will not be put in the countryside because people there, in their rose-tinted cottages, will not allow it. They do not want them on the landscape, but of course, we can put them at sea. I know the sea, because it is very shallow out at our end, and thousands of windmills can be put 60 miles off the shore of Blyth. What annoys me, however, is that the blades that we are testing come from Norway, Germany and China; we are not making them.
That brings me to my second point, on the port of Blyth. Last year, we asked the Chancellor to look into an enterprise zone on the River Blyth. He said he would look at it—fair do’s to him—but what did we get? We put in for 101 hectares, to be exact, which was too big, so we put in again for 66 hectares, which the port of Blyth thought would be a bit more reasonable. Even though all the land is there, lo and behold, when all came to all, the port of Blyth got an enterprise zone of 14 hectares from the Government. As far as I am concerned that is not enough, and we need to drive forward wind farms in our areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) was arguing the case for some money for the Alcan site, which obviously needs to be developed, as it was a big development area. I think that giving money to Alcan was why the hectares were dropped in Blyth port, but perhaps he can put me right on that point.
We must drive those economic zones forward. We need to know where the Government are coming from and whether they are in favour of wind farms. We do not know the answer to that; as Narec said, we saw what happened last week, when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said one thing, while the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Changesaid another. The Government are not putting out the right messages, but we must get this right. We need to know whether or not we have support for wind farms.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this important debate.
Like my right hon. Friend, I do not want to dwell on the negatives or the structural weaknesses. I want to focus on the huge assets, potential and opportunities that we have. Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I do not think our best days are behind us. We have massive potential and we should not think of the area as some sort of manufacturing theme park. I agree with the CBI in its report, “The UK’s Growth Landscape”, when it stated that we should stop trying to level our regional disparities and maximise the economic potential in all. As the North East chamber of commerce states:
“The North East economy is not a problem that the UK needs to solve. Rather, it is an asset which it needs to develop further to produce a stronger return for UK plc.”
If modern industrial policy is about considering where we have comparative advantage and helping to maintain, enhance and maximise that competitiveness, the north-east is at the forefront of what a rebalanced national economy should be looking at. We can build on existing strengths, such as advanced manufacturing, higher education, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, automotives, renewables and the low-carbon economy in energy—particularly in offshore wind in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, but also in carbon capture and storage.
I want to ask the Minister three quick questions. First, we have a chronic shortage of engineering skills. There is a real mismatch between the enormous potential we have in our economic area and the huge levels of youth unemployment. What are the Government doing to provide a greater co-ordination between schools, colleges, universities and businesses? As EngineeringUK said in its recent report on the state of engineering in the UK,
“If we don’t address supply issues, such as the numbers of students taking triple GCSE sciences, the numbers of Level 3 engineering apprenticeships, and the numbers of girls studying physics A level and engineering degrees, we risk stalling economic growth.”
That is very true in our region. What is the Minister going to do about it?
My second concern is procurement. I have mentioned before in the House—my hon. Friend picked up on this—the farce in relation to the largest offshore wind farm being created just off the coast of our region. We have fantastic engineering firms and great supply-chain opportunities. We have the steel to provide the fabrics for the turbines. However, most of the contracts are going to firms from Germany and Belgium. No other nation would have that. Given the massive potential that we have, we need an industrial strategy that involves Government working collaboratively with business. How will the Minister deal with the supply-chain and procurement issue?
The third area is co-ordination across Government. This issue is not confined to the north-east, but goes across Whitehall and industrial sectors. Business policy cannot reside solely in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Every Department should be assessing its activities according to the impact that they have on wealth creation and regional and national competiveness, whether it is the Department for Transport for aviation policy and airport capacity, the Department of Energy and Climate Change for opportunities in the energy industry or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, the Home Office for visas for skilled workers. The other points with regard to this area are clarity and certainty. If we can have a combination of good long-term thinking to allow businesses the confidence to invest for the long term, the regional potential will be addressed.
Lord Heseltine recommends in his report a national growth strategy created in consultation with the business community and setting out a “progressive vision”—his words—for wealth creation over the long term. Will the Minister say whether that will be implemented?
We have plenty of potential in the north-east, but we need all partners—central and local government, business, education and the private and public sectors—to pull together to realise that potential and achieve a common and compelling strategic vision. It will be truly lamentable if we do not grasp the fantastic and often unparalleled opportunities on offer for our region in 2012. I hope that the Minister will set out how she will ensure that there is a concerted and co-ordinated Government effort to allow us to do that.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this very important debate. The last time that north-east MPs were gathered in Westminster Hall, we were talking about unemployment, and the scourge of unemployment is the main reason for our collective desire to see a proper economic plan from this Government for our region.
In my constituency, long-term youth unemployment has risen by 271% during the past year. The year before that was even worse: the increase was well over 1,000%. It is an absolute tragedy for the young people who cannot find a job. What chance have they of ever being able to contribute to economic recovery in the north-east if and when jobs do arrive, especially if they are the good-quality, high-tech jobs that we want? How can they get their foot on the jobs ladder when the evidence shows the damage that long-term youth unemployment does to a person’s life chances and even their life expectancy?
Like other hon. Members, though, I want to concentrate on some of the positives. Nissan’s factory in my constituency continues to win new business from its parent company. One in three cars made in the UK is made in my constituency. The north-east is leading the UK in electric vehicle manufacture. As a result of that success story, Nissan’s supply-chain companies, such as Gestamp UK, which I visited a few weeks ago, Calsonic Kansei and Vantec, are flourishing and looking to expand. Other companies large and small, such as Rayovac and Washington Components, which I visited on Friday, are doing very well in creating employment and training opportunities.
All of that is great news, but it is not enough. We cannot rely on a few companies, good as they are, to lead the economic development of an entire region. The north-east has so much potential. We do not want aid; we want investment. All we need is our fair share of help from central Government to get things going, not measly handouts. We certainly deserved more than the 0.03% that we got of the national infrastructure budget. The north-east economy is not a problem that the UK needs to fix. It and its people are a huge asset and, if developed properly, will produce huge returns for UK plc—just ask Nissan.
One particular project that I am keen to see funded is the extension of the metro to Washington, which would open up Tyne and Wear to my constituents looking for work and make the town an even more attractive venue for investment. That would be particularly welcome given that the rate of new business creation in my constituency is half what it is across the region as a whole.
We need what the Secretary of State and latterly the noble Lord Heseltine have described as industrial activism, but what we got from this Government was the abolition of One North East, whose task was exactly that. I know that the North Eastern LEP will do everything that it can to fill the gap that abolishing One North East has left, as will individual councils such as Sunderland, but if they are to achieve the success that we need, they will need the powers and resources to do that. We also need to build houses, not just to provide work and training opportunities for young people, but because we need them.
So far, all we have had from this Government are policies and decisions that will widen the north-south divide, whether that is supporting regional pay or slashing regional development funding. Growing up, I experienced at first hand the unfairness of the north-south divide. That is what drove me into politics, and I do not intend to stand idly by and watch while it devastates—ravages—another generation of north-easterners. We need a one-nation plan for our economy—a plan that will create the jobs that my constituency needs, a plan that will close the divide, a plan for young people and a plan that will ensure that we do not once again spiral into the cycle of deprivation and unemployment that the previous Tory Government created with impunity across the north-east.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing the debate. It is extremely timely because a review of the north-east economy is being carried out; it is being led by the noble Lord Adonis. The northern group of Labour MPs is keen to engage constructively with that review, and we have today published evidence for the review, setting out our perspective.
I know that the Minister is extremely interested in the aims of economic development and that she understands the importance of well-being. That implies an approach that gives investment in human capital, place making and a concern for the distribution of success a significant role alongside the infrastructure, science and investment that my hon. Friends have spoken about.
As hon. Members have said, the north-east is home to some world-beating industries. Consequently, it is the only region in the UK with a continuing export surplus. To grow and develop, it needs a region-wide approach; concentration on those clusters where research and development can be translated into innovation; skills and retraining for adults and young people so that those losing their jobs in the public sector can take advantage of the opportunities that require a different skill set in the private sector; a fair share of the Government’s infrastructure spend; and spending on housing and place making.
But what have this Government delivered? They have delivered massive cuts. The scale of the cuts in the north-east is huge—£2.8 billion and 7% of our gross output. That is three times the level of the cuts in the south-east. New analysis undertaken for us by Oxford Economics shows the knock-on effect to the private sector of a further £l billion loss in output. That totals a 10% drop in the size of the regional economy. That is why the shops in our high streets are closing and why construction firms are closing because they are not doing work on public sector buildings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken more than £1,000 from every man, woman and child in the region. If the International Monetary Fund is right, the second-round effect is even greater at £3.5 billion. That would mean a staggering 17% fall in the size of the regional economy.
I mention that not to be negative, but to point out to the Minister that we can have the most marvellous supply-side strategy in the world, but if the plug has been pulled out, we will see a small number of centres of excellence in a sea of deprivation, and the overriding objective of raising the quality of life and improving standards for our region will be lost. It is absolutely clear from the economic modelling that trickle-down does not work. Without a change in policy, Oxford Economics projects total job losses of 68,000, with job creation of 46,000, meaning that even ten years hence, we will have a 20,000 deficit in the number of jobs in our region. It imperative that the Minister goes back to the Treasury and points out the importance of a proper public spending settlement on 5 December.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing such an important debate.
There is persistently negative criticism in my Wansbeck constituency because of what we are experiencing. The outlook for employment can only be described as bleak; the area is still reeling from the loss of heavy industry, mainly coal mining. My constituents feel largely ignored by the Government. We rarely see a Government official or Minister anywhere near Wansbeck, and I am quite sure that they do not have a clue where it is. We are rightly concerned that we appear to have been forgotten.
Why have we been forgotten? Why are our economic figures, although similar to those for the main parts of the north-east, unique and quite different from the figures elsewhere in the country? Why are 21 people applying for each job vacancy in the job centre? Why is there a very low number of business start-ups? Why is Wansbeck the constituency with the highest number of bankruptcies in the UK? Why has there been a 33% increase in the number of job seekers since May 2010? We demand answers, and we deserve a lot better.
On a positive note, Bernicia Group and AkzoNobel have relocated to Ashington, which is great news— 600 jobs, new skills, high technologies and proper apprenticeships, not workfare. It is essential. On another positive note, I am absolutely delighted that Northumberland college is creating strong links with local schools and colleges and our excellent universities in the north-east. That can only benefit the people in our region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) mentioned that the area’s economy was largely built on the coal mining industry, and I agree. It has been based on coal, built on coal and has flourished on coal, shipbuilding and other heavy industries, including manufacturing and engineering. There is massive potential in the renewable energy supply chain: marine energy technologies, offshore and onshore wind, and manufacturing the bases and blades. My hon. Friend says that we are bringing in parts by the hundreds and thousands, but it is manufactured across the world, which is unacceptable. We should have inward investment; we should have Government investment, not aid, to provide employment, skills and new technologies for people in our area. I am confident that that is the way forward.
The Energy Bill is crucial. The Government need to ensure that investment policies and the investment market attract energy. We have great belief in the north-east in the future. We do not seek pity or sympathy. We are a region of proud, hard-working individuals and excellent entrepreneurs, with a visionary, vibrant business community that wants the Government to share and match our belief, so that we are better placed to contribute even more than we do now to the UK economy.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who has a neighbouring constituency,on securing such an important debate. I will not comment on many of the things I was going to mention, but will instead associate myself with the comments made by Opposition Members and disassociate myself from the comments of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who described a region that I simply do not recognise.
The positives of our region and Sunderland, part of which I represent, are our manufacturing base and industrious nature. Nissan is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). It is a world leader—the most productive car manufacturing plant in Europe. High-quality engineering companies such as Rolls-Royce are based in my constituency. We do a lot of things well and we need support to build on that, but we also have a low-wage economy, which creates problems with spending power in the regional economy. We have been severely hit by the cuts that the Government have implemented, particularly to in-work benefits, the removal of education maintenance allowance and the increase in tuition fees, which has a direct impact on our young people going on to higher education.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we are the smallest region in the country, Ofsted clearly shows that we have the smallest number of failing schools and the highest number of good and outstanding schools? Our young people were going to university in much greater numbers, but that has now collapsed as a result of Government policy.
Julie Elliott
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Low wages are a problem. I congratulate one of the excellent schools in my constituency, Southmoor academy, on recently introducing the living wage for all its staff. We do not need regional pay. In a letter from 60 leading academics to The Times last week, Keith Shaw, a professor of politics at the university of Northumbria, said that the policy could lead to “a spiral of decline”. The Government need to listen.
What do we need to move forward? We need to support manufacturing and improve further on our positive balance of exports to increase the productivity not only of our region but of the country. Infrastructure needs to be improved and, as previously outlined, transport taxes need to be addressed. We need to deal with the skills gap. The Government must look at that seriously and implement some recommendations in the report on apprenticeships that the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills published last week. The report defines the difference between good apprenticeships and in-work training, and particularly identifies high-level apprenticeships that lead to level 4 and level 5 qualifications. I hope that the Government look carefully at the report.
Youth unemployment is one of the biggest problems in the north-east. The Government’s youth contract is simply not working there. Youth unemployment is still rising and long-term youth unemployment is growing every month. We do not want a generation of young people who are simply left behind, as was the case in the 1980s under Prime Minister Thatcher. Our regional economy and our young people do not need that again. The Government must look at the problem.
We need better, simpler support for business, and local enterprise partnerships should be given the power and funding to do their job. The Government have said that the question of whether we get a fourth regional growth fund round is iffy. I would like the money that has already been promised to be delivered. Due to the lack of time, I will end my remarks there.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing this important and timely debate. Yesterday, Tesco announced a new retail outlet in Cobalt business park in my constituency that will provide nine jobs. There were 660 applicants—more that 70 for every vacancy. These are difficult times for the north-east economy.
As has been said, the contraction of the public sector is only just beginning. I am concerned by attitude of some Government Ministers that public is bad and private is all good. The reality is that there is only one north-east economy and the relationship between public and private is complex. John N. Dunn Group, an excellent family company in my constituency, did a lot of work when schools were being built and social housing was being repaired, but such companies are finding it difficult to survive. When money is tight, and it will be tight into the future, it is important that we ensure that companies in our localities achieve maximum benefit. We need to improve the transport infrastructure, which is why I want to bid again for funding to improve both sides of the road in the Tyne tunnel. It is important that the Government do not just put out another press release to say that it will happen, but actually get on with it.
As we have heard today, we have some of the most advanced manufacturing companies in the country, if not the world. One in three cars made in the UK is made in the north-east and 70% of North sea oil and gas platforms are built in the north-east. When Hitachi comes to the region, which it will thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), there will be huge opportunities. We need to follow the approach of the regional development agency, ensure that we support clusters and get the maximum advantage for the supply chain in that situation.
Furthermore, it is important that small and medium-sized enterprises have access to capital. It is not right that half the companies in the north-east do not know anything about the Government’s four big flagship policies in that regard, and less than one in six takes part. When Weigh-Ahead, an excellent company in my constituency, approached a bank administering one of the Government’s schemes, it was told, “Actually, we can’t support you, but if you set up in London, we definitely could support you.” Such regional imbalances must be addressed. The local enterprise partnerships have a key role to play in that regard. I am concerned about our lack of capacity, especially as Lord Heseltine appears to be saying that it is important that we devolve not only resources but decision-making. The Scottish Development Agency still exists, so there are resources on that side of the border. Let us ensure that we have a level playing field.
On the question of capacity, our universities are a crucial part of the regional economy. It is important that our young people do well. North Tyneside has the unenviable reputation of being the area where the number of applications to higher education fell more last year than anywhere else in the country. That decline was the result of the double whammy of the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the hike in tuition fees. The Government must address that issue quickly.
As has been said, the north-east is not a problem that the UK has to solve but an asset. What we need is a stronger commitment by the Government to a policy that creates the conditions for growth.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) for securing this debate. In the short time that I have, I want to discuss the lessons that can be learned from the Hitachi deal and the investment that is coming to my constituency. It is the biggest private sector investment in the north-east since Nissan. It will create a £60 million to £80 million factory and 720 jobs, and will produce the Intercity Express Programme. We must remember that the deal was an initiative by the Labour Government, and not this Government. The campaign that we pulled together and that the coalition used showed the north-east at its best, with everyone coming together to ensure that the deal went ahead.
My right hon. Friend said that the Government have a masochistic approach to economics, which is correct. The other problem is the mantra that says, “Public sector bad, private sector good.” What the Hitachi project proved was that when the public and private sectors come together, they can achieve great things. I say to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that One North East played a great part in bringing Hitachi to the region. The factory is closer to Teesside than it is to Newcastle. I hope that in the not too distant future Teesport will be used to export trains to the rest of Europe.
The other lesson for me is the fact that we are part of Europe, which is one of the reasons that Hitachi came to the UK. It came not just because of the Intercity Express Programme, but because we are part of a market of 300 million-plus people.
Phil Wilson
I stand corrected. It is a market of not just 60 million in our own country, but 500 million people. On the back of the Intercity Express Programme, Hitachi will bid for work in other countries. It is looking for work in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, so that we will not just deal with trains in our own country but become an exporter of trains.
Tom Blenkinsop
One North East was instrumental not only in bringing Hitachi to the region, but in securing Sahaviriya Steel Industries funding for the Teesside Cast Products steelworks at Redcar. As a former union official, I was in constant talks with SSI, Don Cook and other companies that were interested in buying the plant.
Phil Wilson
That is absolutely right. The demise of One North East is a great tragedy for the area, and local enterprise partnerships will be nowhere near as good at attracting business to the region.
I have run out of time, because I want my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) to be able to speak. Essentially, we need the public and private sectors to work together. There is good and bad in both. What we should do is use the good and reform the bad for the benefit of the whole country.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Thanks to the discipline of my colleagues, I find myself with a bit more time. None the less, I will be quick. We have talked a lot today about the strengths of the north-east, but I want to focus on two specific areas. As our geography means that we are not in that golden triangle of south-east England, northern France and Germany, our transport infrastructure is important to our development. We have three and four-lane motorways right the way through this country until we get to the north-east, where the road becomes a two-lane motorway. If we go north of Newcastle, the roads are not even dualled. The issue is incredibly important to investors in the region. The fact that the Government have failed to resolve the issue of congestion at the airports in the south-east has a deleterious effect on airports in the north-east.
The problem with west coast main line is nothing compared with what is coming along for the east coast main line because of our failure to invest. The fact that the Government are only prepared to commit to a Bill for High Speed 2 to Birmingham says a lot about the lack of investment in the north-east. Until we sort out those transport issues, we will have real problems with growth.
Ian Mearns
The east coast main line is a crucial link to the south-east for the north-east. With the investment going into HS2, a lot of us are worried that the east coast infrastructure will have to last another 30 years without significant investment. This creeping at the edges is a matter of great concern.
Pat Glass
I want to concentrate not on the strengths that we currently have but on the strengths of the future. We are the smallest region in the country, and yet, according to Ofsted records, we have proportionately the smallest number of failing schools in the country and the largest number of good and outstanding schools. Our universities are world beaters. They do not just exist in a small enclave as part of a campus. What our universities do in the field of research in partnership with local companies is part of the future of our region. I have worked closely with the school of education at Durham on initial teacher training, which is recognised as a world-beating programme, yet the Government are cutting places in such schools locally. That will not help the growth in investment in the north-east.
The ability to attract foreign students has been mentioned. We get a lot of students from all over the world who come to study, then stay in the region. When they come to Durham in particular, they tend to fall in love with the romance of the city and stay. That is in serious jeopardy now. The money that has been invested by the regional development agency to assist research in our universities has been cut dramatically. We are talking about the skills of our future. As a result of combined Government policy over the education maintenance allowance, tuition fees and cuts in home-to-school and college transport, higher education participation in parts of our region has collapsed by up to 30%, which is devastating for our young people and for the growth of our economy in future.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr. Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time and I congratulate you on your quite impressive stewardship of such a huge number of Members who wanted to contribute to this debate and who have been able to contribute.
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing what I agree is an incredibly timely and important debate for us to have, because the UK will prosper only when we fully exploit the resources and strengths of every single part of it. The coalition seems somewhat blinkered to the huge value and potential that exist in the north-east. My hon. Friends and Government Members have conveyed with huge passion the potential that the north-east has, and it has been a very forward-looking, positive and genuine debate. I hope that the Minister will feed back a lot of the suggestions and contributions that have been made today, not only to the Business Secretary but to the Chancellor, whose Department should have been responding to the debate.
My right hon. Friend set out five main areas on which he feels the north-east region needs to focus in order properly to harness its economic and social potential, and I agree with every point that he made. However, I will try to summarise some of the strength of feeling that has been put across by right hon. and hon. Members today, which can be divided into three main ways in which the Government can support regions such as the north-east and get a grip on our economy as a whole, to harness the potential for growth that we have.
The Prime Minister said in his speech last night at the lord mayor’s banquet that he is not afraid to travel the world in pursuit of selling UK plc, and yet his Government are clearly failing to harness and exploit some very obvious opportunities to foster growth, innovation and world-leading industry. Like my right hon. Friend, I will not conduct a post-mortem on the demise of the regional development agencies, in particular the demise of One North East, although I have to say that I do not agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who feels that the RDAs are responsible for a lack of economic growth. That is because One North East undoubtedly brought huge economic benefits to the north-east region and secured a huge amount of inward investment and exports, channelling those in and out of the region and creating a surplus balance of trade.
The figures speak for themselves. Around 82% of all the inward investment that came into the north-east in 2009-10 came through the inward investment team based at One North East—£387 of investment in the region for every £1 spent. One North East was a particularly successful RDA with a solid record of success. Following its creation in 1999, the north-east’s economy experienced greater growth than any other region outside London and it still enjoys a positive balance of trade, which I have already mentioned. We invent, make and export things in the north-east, which is something we would like the Prime Minister to celebrate and support on his international trade tours.
What about the future? The times have changed, and we have experienced a financial crisis and a collapse in our banking system. We recognise that reductions needed to be made, but we also lament the wholesale throwing-out of the RDA baby with all the bathwater. Exports and inward investment support is just one area that demonstrates how losing the RDA is a loss to the region. Where Labour in Government saw the huge potential of regions such as the north-east, delivered bespoke business support and saw record economic growth, we now have a generic UK approach based on the Prime Minister’s “sink or swim” model that risks overlooking some major opportunities. The risk is that the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is letting down the regions, which in turn lets down the UK as a whole.
So who are the economic drivers of the future? The local enterprise partnerships are a collaboration of businesses and local authorities. We are more than two years on from their inception and they are starting to form a view of the way ahead. I will not dwell on how much lost opportunity there has been in that time, but I will dwell for a moment on whether the LEPs themselves have the capacity to drive this agenda forward in the way that it needs to be driven forward. Businesses need to be at the forefront of rebuilding our economy, but do they have the capacity or even the will to drive a regional or national strategy? Local authorities are also at the forefront of rebuilding our economy and they absolutely should be part of driving that agenda, but I know that my own local authority and other authorities up and down the country—well, certainly Labour local authorities at least—are being cut right down to the bone and they will barely have the resources to keep their libraries open, never mind the resources to co-ordinate a regional strategy for growth.
There is no shortage of will, but there is potentially a huge shortage of capacity. That was identified by Lord Heseltine in his review on growth, so I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the Government’s intentions to implement any of Lord Heseltine’s recommendations.
The final aspect that I will focus on is the Government and their own approach to economic growth. While dismantling the regional structures and setting people free to pursue growth—where they can locally agree to do so—the Government’s own actions are undermining efforts at every turn. Let us take the new green industries as an example. While other countries are steaming ahead and grasping the massive opportunities and indeed necessities of developing low-carbon technologies, our Government seem to emanate nothing but chaos and confusion, or hokeycokey as my right hon. Friend put it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) also spoke very passionately about the opportunities that the north-east has to drive growth in renewable sectors in areas such as Blyth; I know that the Minister is now fully aware of where Blyth and Ashington are, because I saw her look them up on a map. Offshore wind and other renewable technologies are a huge potential growth sector for regions such as the north-east. We have local subsea expertise in oil and gas, as well as an excellent strategic location to draw companies in.
Having said that, how can investors feel confident? I have heard from investors that they are very hesitant to come forward to make the necessary investment and to commit to delivering as part of the Government’s flagship green deal because their confidence has been undermined following the feed-in tariff subsidy slashing fiasco and the mixed messages that are coming from the Government. I would like to hear the Minister’s view as to whether stability and certainty are seen as priorities for encouraging investment, and I would also like confirmation of what the Government are doing to get a grip and to improve confidence in their strategy among the members of the business community who have the potential to drive growth in this area.
In conclusion, Members have raised a vast array of concerns about the Government’s strategy but they have also put forward many positive suggestions about how the Government can work with regions such as the north-east to boost growth. There is no doubt that, as a region, the north-east faces particular challenges. We have a disturbingly high unemployment rate. We also have falling university applications, which a number of my hon. Friends have highlighted. In the last 12 months, there has been a 19% fall in university applications in my own constituency and hon. Members have also mentioned the very worrying 23% drop in university applications from the north Tyneside area, which is a huge concern in terms of the future skills gap that hon. Members have also highlighted in the debate.
We also have a proximity to Scotland, which is investing significantly more in its growth and investment strategy than the north-east is able to as a region. We even have Alex Salmond attending a dinner in Newcastle this evening—I believe that it is in my own constituency—and his message is that the north-east needs a voice as strong as the one that Scotland has. So here we are, being that voice today. The region has a proud success story to tell, of innovation, manufacturing, exports and world-class education, not to mention the beautiful surroundings and rich natural resources. So the message to the Government today is that the north-east and other regions up and down the country are a ripe resource that the UK can draw on to power this nation back to prosperity. “Better Together” is a slogan that applies not only to our union with Scotland but to the whole of the UK. What we need from this Government is a clear and vocal recognition that there is more to UK plc than the south-east and London, and I hope that the Minister can feed that message back to the Prime Minister today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I echo others in saying that you have chaired our proceedings expertly, making sure that everyone who wanted to contribute has been able to do so. I commend the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on securing the debate. I am glad he managed to make it here, having run from the tube. There is a great tradition of running in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of running to in 2006 in the great north run.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and other Members for the constructive approach they have taken to the debate. I really appreciate the richness of the experience we have heard about from both sides, and particularly from Members who are, understandably, passionate about their constituencies and about the north-east as a whole. A wide range of subjects have been touched on, including transport, skills, energy policy, investment, employment, education and regional development—the list goes on. I will endeavour to deal with as many points as possible in the time I have, but I hope Members appreciate that I face something of a challenge, in the nine minutes available, in addressing absolutely every point that has been raised. However, I undertake to write to Members if I am unable to cover any questions.
Jo Swinson
I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I face a challenge in responding to the debate as it is, and giving way to him would just reduce my ability to respond to the points made by him and his hon. Friends.
No one is under any illusions about the scale of the wider economic challenges we face, but the Government have taken the tough decisions needed to tackle the deficit, and we are working hard to make sure that effective action is taken in our economies, not only internationally, but locally.
Far from being all doom and gloom, however, the debate has also been positive, in that it has focused on the real asset the north-east economy is to the wider UK economy. Many of the stories we have heard today are a real sign that a transformation is under way in the north-east and that many businesses are thriving. Members have touched on the fact that various sectors are moving away from the manufacturing of the past, important though that still is to the north-east; there is now a wide range of sectors, including health care, life sciences, petrochemicals and low-carbon technologies, although the area still has a strong base in things such as motor vehicles and steel. There is also a positive story to tell on export levels in the north-east, which increased to £14 billion in the year to June, up 7.8% on the previous 12 months. Indeed, the north-east is the only English region with a significant positive trade balance. We therefore have fantastic assets in the north-east.
The right hon. Gentleman started with the theme of connectedness, and I quite agree about the importance of infrastructure. I represent a constituency in the west of Scotland, so I recognise the importance of rail infrastructure. I also recognise the important points he made about our connectedness internationally, in terms of the movement of human resources between different countries. Students play an important part in our universities, and many of them, delighted to experience living in the UK, may continue in highly skilled jobs, if they get one after graduating. It is important to recognise that there is no cap on student numbers; while the Government are committed to reducing net migration, we recognise the important role that workers and students can play across countries. On immigration, I would gently tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was his colleague, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who made a point, as Prime Minister, of speaking about protecting British jobs for British workers, so perhaps the attitude in the Labour party could sometimes be changed to reflect a more positive approach towards the benefits that immigration can be bring to the economy.
The right hon. Member for South Shields also touched on the importance of long-term investment in energy policy. I wholeheartedly agree that clarity and certainty are vital; the Government recognise that the private sector will need about £110 billion of investment, and we are committed to making sure, through the energy Bill, that that certainty is provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will obviously lead that work, and I appreciate that the Opposition will want to work constructively on a cross-party basis. As the right hon. Gentleman said, these decisions will ultimately span decades, so it is important that one Government do not make a decision that might be changed after a subsequent election if a different colour of Government are elected.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about public spending crowding out private spending and about the false choice that is often presented to us. We can have a debate about that, and I appreciate that there are differences in our parties’ approaches to the cuts that are needed, or otherwise, to tackle the deficit. I did not come into politics to make cuts, and I do not think anybody enjoys making them, but I recognise that tough fiscal discipline is important to make sure that we have the historically low interest rates needed for economic recovery.
Jo Swinson
I have a lot to get through if I am to answer as many points as possible, so I hope the hon. Lady will understand why I want to continue.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the partnership between the private and public sectors is important. That is why we are developing an industrial strategy to make sure that businesses, investors and the public can have more clarity about the long-term direction. We are planning for the long term, but initially focusing on five areas: sectors, technologies, skills, access to finance and procurement. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned the Heseltine review, which has made 89 recommendations, to which the Government will respond in due course. However, the industrial strategy and the approach the Government are taking go with grain of the overall approach in the Heseltine review.
The regional growth fund has been able to invest a significant amount as part of the partnership between the private and public sectors. It has invested £2.4 billion, of which £280 million has been offered to projects across the north-east. There was some criticism of the speed with which the money has gone out, but it is obviously important that the Government do due diligence, and I think people would recognise that. It is also important to note that certainty of public funding sometimes means that a project can go ahead once the funding has been allocated, even if the funding does not come until a later phase of the project. In addition, there is the Growing Places fund, which will help to unblock stalled local infrastructure projects. North East LEP has received £25 million from it, and Tees Valley has received £8.5 million. It is also important to remember that, in the north of England, £1 billion of European regional development funds were awarded in the most recent finance round.
The right hon. Gentleman and others raised the important issue of youth unemployment, and we all share the absolute desire to make sure that a generation is not left behind. We know the long-term scarring effect that unemployment has when young people are unemployed. I know the right hon. Gentleman has been in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I know the work he has been doing on the issue. He makes various critiques of the Government’s approach in the youth contract, but it is important to recognise that, for example, enabling young people to take up work experience placements without losing access to benefits, as happened under the previous Labour Government, means that people can get out of the trap of not having experience and therefore not being able to get job, but not being able to get the experience because they would lose their benefits. That is an important part of the youth contract. Although the right hon. Gentleman is rather dismissive of wage subsidies, they will deliver private sector, lasting jobs, in contrast to the schemes that were in place under the Labour Government.
Of course, not all apprenticeships are for young people, but 51% of them were last year, and they are an important part of the solution to youth unemployment. We are not complacent, and we recognise that there is a lot more to be done. Overall youth unemployment figures are coming down, which is good news, but we are absolutely committed to keeping a very close eye on the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman’s fifth point was about finance for innovation. The Technology Strategy Board, and particularly the new network of Catapults—technology and innovation centres—are a really important part of how we can develop technologies for the future and grow our economy.
A wide range of points were made by other Members; I will not get to them all now, but I have made a note of them, and I will endeavour to write to Members about them. I would, however, like to mention the city deals, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) referred to. Obviously, the Newcastle city deal is excellent news for the city, and it will unlock £1 billion of extra investment and create 13,000 jobs; indeed, wave 2 could have benefits for other parts of the north-east.
I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) about the fantastic innovation going on at Narec. I appreciate he is unhappy with the 14 hectares of enterprise zone, but he has campaigned hard to get the enterprise zone, and I am glad that he at least acknowledged that the Treasury listened and granted the request.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) talked about how we can make sure we get engineering skills, and the employee-owner pilots, which are putting funds in the hands of local employers to work out how best to get the skills they need, are an important part of that. I also welcomed the hon. Gentleman’s comments about girls studying science. That is important, and the Inspiring the Future project, which I would encourage Members to become involved in, will help to build on the links between businesses and schools, and indeed the experience that Members of Parliament may be able to bring to schools.
I appreciate that I will not be able to get round to the rest of the points that have been made, but I welcome hon. Members’ contributions.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and I would ask them to leave quickly and quietly if they are not staying for the new debate.
Prime Minister’s Evidence (Leveson Inquiry)
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to sit under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, not least because it keeps you away from Corby for another few hours.
Why does the issue that I am raising matter? Why should we bother to have a debate at all about the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry? For the simple reason that the inquiry is about to report in the next couple of weeks—perhaps in three weeks. There are many rumours about the precise date. The report will almost undoubtedly be the most significant moment in the fortunes of the British press for several decades.
Following the horrible events at Soham, there was an investigation by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee 10 years ago into what happened with the press and the way that local people were badgered. However, it is only following the News of the World investigations that people have, I think, come to the conclusion that the door of self-regulation’s last-gasp saloon has already been firmly slammed. That is why 42 Conservative Members of Parliament wrote to The Guardian last week suggesting that they will—as long as Lord Justice Leveson does not come up with madcap suggestions—support the kind of ideas that he may come up with.
The report will go to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but, most importantly, to the Prime Minister. The bona fides of the Prime Minister, who will direct the Government’s decision about what should happen in the light of the report, is essential to our understanding of how we should proceed. The Government will decide whether there should be any statute, which is what many of us would support and whether to present any measure. Consequently, it is vital that we should be able to assess the Prime Minister’s bona fides in relation to the evidence that he gave.
Chris Bryant
Of course, although it is unconventional in a half-hour debate to take interventions from hon. Members who have not notified the Member leading the debate.
Chris Bryant
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to repeat the comments that I made earlier in the year. I do apologise, and have apologised profoundly to the House, for giving evidence that I had previous notice of as a core participant, which I should not have done—I apologised to the Leveson inquiry as well; I believed it to have been published but it had not been—but there are still discrepancies in the Prime Minister’s account. The Prime Minister’s list of meetings does not include, for instance, the dinner with the Brooks family at their home on 22 May; so, no, the Prime Minister’s list is still not correct. Also, it does not account for the fact that two of the meetings that Rupert Murdoch said happened were withdrawn later in the day in amended evidence. I am sorry; I am not going to apologise to the Prime Minister, because I still think there are profound discrepancies in the evidence that he has provided.
The other reason I think that the matter important is that the Prime Minister cannot in the end run away from the norms of Parliament by evading answering 17 questions of mine and countless questions from other members of the media and the public. I put all those points to him in a letter last night, because I presumed that he would not reply to today’s debate, and that a Minister from one or another Department instead would do so. I want to say to the Prime Minister that it is not right simply to say one will not answer questions. Whether one likes a Member or the tone of the question is neither here nor there. It is a fundamental principle of Parliament that questions must be answered. He does himself no favours, because in this regard silence speaks volumes.
There are things that we already know about the Prime Minister’s evidence. We know that Mrs Brooks and News International gave considerably more material to the Leveson inquiry—texts, and, as I understand it, e-mails as well—that has not yet been produced in public, but will be published before the inquiry is finished. That material relates to three periods: October 2009, May 2011 and June 2011. We also know that some witnesses—there is at least one lawyer in the Chamber who will know well the processes of the Inquiries Act 2005—were served with section 21(2) notices, which meant that they had to provide material. The Prime Minister has still refused to answer even whether he was required to provide any material under section 21(2)—so, for that matter, have the Home Secretary and other Ministers. It is a simple question. Were they asked to provide material under section 21(2) or not?
We also know for an incontrovertible fact now—because Downing street has confirmed it to several newspapers, although not in answers to Parliament—that Downing street has stored four categories of material in relation to evidence for the Leveson inquiry: texts between the Prime Minister and Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch; e-mails between the Prime Minister and those four people; texts between Andy Coulson and News International; and e-mails between Andy Coulson and News International. I simply draw those out separately because the Prime Minister, in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry, did so, too. I simply do not understand why Adam Smith, the special adviser to the then Culture Secretary, was required to provide every e-mail and text to the inquiry, every one of which was made public, while none of the other people involved was required to do so. None of the politicians, so far as I can deduce, but perhaps the Minister will correct me—
Mr Buckland
Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that it does not seem that any politician was required to provide information under section 21—including the former Prime Ministers, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and Tony Blair?
Chris Bryant
Yes, so far as I understand it, that is true, but I have no means to ask Tony Blair questions through Parliament—nor, for that matter, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Everyone should provide all the material that should be in the public domain. However, only one person is now the Prime Minister, who will make decisions about the future regulation of the press. I do not understand why Adam Smith had to provide all the information that led to his resignation, when the Prime Minister and his special advisers did not have to provide any such material. That suggests to me that there is one rule for those at the top, and another rule for others.
We also know for a fact—because Downing street said so this weekend to The Mail on Sunday—that a civil servant at Downing street and an unnamed lawyer reviewed all the material and decided not to hand it over to the Leveson inquiry. We do not know what criteria were used for deciding whether it should be handed over, or why they decided that nothing—not a single e-mail or text message—was relevant to the inquiry, whether it referred to the BBC or gave further evidence of a much more extensive relationship or of earlier knowledge of what went on at the News of the World than we have been aware of thus far. The only thing that we know is the name of the civil servant—Tristan Pedelty. We do not know the name of the lawyer, or, for that matter, whether the lawyer was paid for by the taxpayer or by the Prime Minister personally. Certainly, all the legal advice provided to former Prime Ministers would have been paid for by them personally.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows about the rules of debate. I have not stopped him so far. He has been perilously close to crossing the line in trying to impugn the personal conduct of the Prime Minister. He has just crossed the line in making an allegation, if I heard him correctly, that it might be that the Prime Minister personally paid for legal advice. If I have misheard that, I would welcome a correction. If I heard him correctly, I ask him to withdraw that remark.
Chris Bryant
Mr Hollobone, I do not understand why it would be impugning the Prime Minister to suggest that he had paid for legal advice. It is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s office itself has said that it is perfectly legitimate for any Member to pay for their own legal advice. I cannot see why that would be impugning him. I am not intending to impugn him by suggesting that he may have paid for the legal advice. I think you are nodding.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I welcome the clarification from the hon. Gentleman. I just remind him that, as far as “Erskine May” is concerned, expressions that are unparliamentary include those which impute “false or unavowed motives”. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of that. I just point it out, so that he does not cross the line.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful, but I think that that chairing is slightly dubious, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr Hollobone, because I have made no imputation. I have not made any imputation at all about the Prime Minister. I have merely suggested that he might have paid for his own legal advice. I think that that is perfectly legitimate.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. There is no dubious chairmanship in this Hall today, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting otherwise.
Chris Bryant
Thank you, Mr Hollobone.
We also know the Prime Minister’s interpretation of what is relevant, because he has already announced it to the Leveson inquiry. He said that he had looked for
“text messages…in relation to the BSkyB bid.”
He went on:
“In relation to my e-mails”—
meaning his e-mails—
“searches are still being carried out.”
That is from his written evidence to the Leveson inquiry. In both those cases, as I understand it, he understood that the only thing that he was looking for was material relevant to the BSkyB bid.
I think that most reasonable people in this country would conclude that any text or e-mail that showed an extensive relationship between the Prime Minister or a member of his staff and members of News International—for instance, around the time of the setting of the licence fee, if it related to the licence fee—was material that should be published and be in the public domain. Any reasonable person would expect that, at a time when decisions were being taken about the future regulation of Ofcom and a new communications Bill was being considered, any communications showing much closer access between the Prime Minister or his office and one set of people in the media market, such as News International—Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch—is material that should be in the public domain, so that the public could decide whether that is relevant.
Indeed, the Leveson inquiry is not explicitly into the BSkyB takeover bid at all. It is expressly, as the Prime Minister says in his written evidence, into
“the role of the media and its relationship with the public, police and politicians.”
I would therefore have thought that any texts and e-mails between the Prime Minister or his office and the people we are talking about at News International were material to that inquiry, and so should be handed over.
We also know that the relationship between the Prime Minister and Rebekah Brooks was certainly far more than neighbourly. Some people have suggested that, as they were neighbours, they were bound to know each other. In the Rhondda, “neighbours” means those living in the same street; Dean and Churchill, where the two families live, are six and a half miles apart, so that is a different understanding of neighbourliness. In the evidence, Mr Jay asked the Prime Minister:
“did you see her every weekend or most weekends in the period 2008, 2009?”
He replied, “Not every weekend.” “But most weekends?” was the next question, to which the Prime Minister replied:
“In 2008, 2009? I’d have to check. I might be able to go back and check, but I don’t think every weekend. I don’t think most weekends. But it would depend.”
My contention is that if extensive material held by No. 10 Downing street refers to conversations held during that time—2008 and 2009—or held otherwise by the Prime Minister reveals that his answer was not entirely complete when he was speaking to the Leveson inquiry, it is only right and proper that it should be published. In a sense, that is the sole point that I am trying to make.
There is lots that we do not know. The Government have trumpeted their transparency over the past two years. Yet, I note—I hope that the Minister will be able to correct this—that no Ministers’ list of meetings with outside bodies has been available since June this year. The June to September list is not available, but it should normally have been out by now. It is important that that is published before the Leveson inquiry reports. Most people would want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Culture Secretary or other Cabinet Ministers, as well as the Prime Minister, are now having extensive conversations with all the editors and proprietors of newspapers in advance of the Leveson report, so that they can make a fair judgment about the bona fides of the Government’s intentions.
As I have already said to the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), there are discrepancies in the list of meetings that the Prime Minister has thus far advanced. I am also somewhat doubtful about some of the lists of Ministers’ meetings. I merely note that a large number of Ministers only ever record eight meetings with external bodies in three months. Eight meetings in three months would seem to be something of a dereliction of duty. I would have thought it would be eight meetings a day. I have looked at the Minister’s list—it is a very, very thin list.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Thin! It is a long list.
Chris Bryant
It is a thin list, I suggest.
Why should all this material be published? That it should is not my word, but that of a civil servant at No. 10 Downing street. The material that is being held—its existence is not now being denied by Downing street—has been described as salacious. I believe that everyone has a right to privacy, which is a fundamental principle, and not everything should always be published: people should be able to retain a degree of privacy. However, when the person is the Prime Minister or a Minister who is making executive decisions about a particular industry, it is important that there is full transparency, so that everybody knows whether they are acting on a clean slate or are parti pris and whether they are doing favours for their friends or are entirely free, open, clear and transparent in making their decisions. As I think the Prime Minister has said many times, the only antiseptic is full transparency.
I believe that this material needs to be published, because it has been described as deeply embarrassing—again, not by me, but by a civil servant in Downing street. I know better than many others that one can get over embarrassment—indeed, extreme embarrassment—in life. The Prime Minister knows that, too: he knows that if this material is just embarrassing, it is neither here nor there. I can only conclude that this material may be incriminating because it suggests that the Prime Minister knew what was going on far sooner than we realise; or because it makes explicit how the Prime Minister and Mrs Brooks were working together; or because it shows No. 10, in the shape of Mr Coulson, in cahoots with News International—I particularly want to know whether the material gathered by No. 10 has been given to the Metropolitan police for its ongoing investigations—or because it details the deal that I believe was secured between the Conservative party and News International or News Corporation before the general election, which led to the BBC having the World Service and S4C rolled into its budget and to its total budget being cut by 16%; or because it shows a consistency and regularity of access and contact that would make most reasonable people in this country question the bona fides of the Prime Minister.
I believe that all this will come out. I put in a freedom of information request on 18 October, and I have to receive a reply by Thursday. I can see no reason why the Government should say no, but they may do so, in which case we will simply have to go through the process of going to the Information Commissioner. I understand that many journalists have also put in identical or similar freedom of information requests. I say to the Prime Minister that however long he puts his fingers in his ears, screams “La, la, la” and refuses to answer questions, in the end this material will come out. The message of the News of the World saga must surely be that the original criminality might be terrible, but the cover-up always does for people in the end. This is not going to go away.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I certainly would not describe it as “dubious”. However, I was interested to learn this morning that you are our secret weapon in Corby, so I will endeavour to keep to time in order to release you on to the people of Corby later today.
This is an opportunity to debate some important issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), not least his assertion that my list of meetings was thin. I take some exception to being accused of having a thin list of meetings. When I became a Minister, and the first set of meetings of Ministers was published, I came top of the list because of the number of meetings I had had—twice as many as some ministerial colleagues. It is, however, always difficult to win in politics. I was proud for a day to have the longest list of ministerial meetings until I read on Twitter that it was clear evidence that I was in hock to corporate interests. That just goes to show.
As the Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions, it was this Government who set up the Leveson inquiry, but it is worth reminding the House that it had all-party support—including that of the Leader of the Opposition, and of the Chairmen of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the Justice Committee. The whole House has got behind it and is looking forward to the outcome. We should, however, use the opportunity of this important debate to set out in more detail the background to the inquiry, and the powers and procedures of inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Chris Bryant
Has the Prime Minister provided a single text or e-mail to the Leveson inquiry, and was he asked to provide his evidence under section 21(2)?
Mr Vaizey
Last night, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Prime Minister, saying, in question No. 6: “You have stated in your written evidence to the inquiry that you have provided all texts related explicitly to the BSkyB takeover but have refused to state whether you have ever provided a single such piece of evidence.” I find that statement completely contradictory. The Prime Minister has made a statement to a judge-led public inquiry, signed a statement of truth, and given evidence on oath, in which he has said that he has provided the evidence to the inquiry, and yet the hon. Gentleman will not accept that.
Mr Vaizey
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
I just want to set out the background to the Leveson inquiry. We cannot fail to be aware of the circumstances under which the inquiry was established. Some 16 months ago, a series of revelations clearly showed that action was required. The driving factors included accusations of illegal forms of news gathering by the press, particularly phone hacking, and allegations of improper relationships between the press and the police. An unhealthy culture in some newsrooms had gone unchecked, until brought to a head by the Milly Dowler hacking revelations, and I know that the country, and every Member of this House, was appalled to hear about those activities.
As the House knows, the Prime Minister was quick to act. Within days he had put in place steps to set up an independent wide-reaching inquiry, headed up by a judge—Lord Justice Leveson—and backed by a panel of experts.
Mr Rob Wilson
What does my hon. Friend make of the claim by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that he is not in a position to ask the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), about what texts and e-mails he had with Rebekah Brooks and others? It seems ludicrous to make that claim in this place.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what my hon. Friend says. That is, of course, a matter for the hon. Member for Rhondda. One can, of course, ask members of the Government questions in debate and through parliamentary procedures, but with other Members of Parliament for whom we cannot use parliamentary procedures, we can use this thing called the post. It could be the internal post, or it could be Royal Mail. The hon. Gentleman could write to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) internally in the House of Commons, or he could write to him at his home address, just to check the facts, which I know he is keen to clear up.
I have set out the background to the Leveson inquiry, but I also want to make it absolutely clear for the record that the Government recognise the fundamental importance of free speech, as well as of a vigorous press to support our democratic process. The press plays an essential role in holding the powerful to account. It brings matters of public interest to the fore, informs citizens and enables them to exercise their democratic rights. Whatever steps are proposed, it is vital to maintain a press that is free to conduct that important role in our society but, equally, we all want a regulatory system in which the public can have confidence.
To ensure that the abuses identified and the wider culture could be examined, the Leveson inquiry was given the task of exploring the culture, practice and ethics of the press, particularly in the context of the press’s relationship with the public, the police and politicians. From those investigations, the inquiry will make recommendations for the future of press regulation, and on how future concerns about press behaviour should be dealt with. As the hon. Member for Rhondda made clear, we expect the inquiry to report shortly, but I am unable to give the House a date because that is in the gift of Lord Justice Leveson, as, I remind the hon. Gentleman, is the whole conduct of his inquiry.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. It is the convention of these half-hour debates that interventions are taken only by agreement of the person who has tabled the debate. I note that the Minister is choosing to give way to people who did not notify me before the debate that they would be seeking to intervene.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman, unusually for him, is muddling some of the parliamentary procedure here. In half-hour debates, if an additional speaker wants to speak they have to seek the permission of both the Member who has tabled the debate and the Minister who is replying. That rule does not apply, however, to interventions, and it is entirely at the discretion of the Member who is on his feet at the time—in this case, the Minister.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I do not know whether that is in order, but it is certainly not appreciated, and it is just wasting the time available to respond to the debate. I would have thought the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would want to hear the Minister’s remarks.
Mr Vaizey
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute. I think, Mr Hollobone, that you are absolutely right, if I may say so. I am now running out of time in which to respond to the hon. Gentleman because of his point of order. You will also have noticed, Mr Hollobone, that before he made the point of order I had already agreed to take an intervention from my hon. Friend.
Andrew Jones
Instead of pursuing conspiracy theories, I have noted that the previous Government reportedly held slumber parties at Chequers for News International figures. Does the Minister agree that politicians of all parties were simply too close to the press?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am not in the business of making allegations against people and trying to cloud the issues on the basis of personal attacks, but it is clear, and this was said by the Prime Minister from the outset, that all politicians should look to themselves and their relationships with the press. I have always found it odd that the Opposition have developed the theme that the Conservative party was somehow too close to the Murdochs. I have been involved in politics for a while, and I remember that for the past 14 years—before 2009—all News International newspapers were slavishly devoted to the Labour party and played a significant role in securing the election of Tony Blair. Indeed, he flew to Tasmania, I seem to remember—
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I beg your indulgence. Could you just clarify for me what the terms of this debate are? Are they meant to be the Prime Minister’s evidence to the Leveson inquiry or what we are hearing about at the moment, which has nothing to do with the inquiry or, indeed, with the Prime Minister’s evidence?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The title of the debate is the Prime Minister and the Leveson inquiry. I was listening to the Minister’s remarks and he was talking about the Leveson inquiry, and I have ruled that to be in order.
Charitable Registration
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I declare an interest, entered on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a partner of a law firm that carries out a modest amount of charity law work, although, as may become patently clear in my speech, I have never specialised in that field. I recently had to take a crash course on charity law, and I apologise for any errors in my understanding of what is a far from simple field.
I am heartily encouraged by the number of Members attending this debate; it is the most I have ever seen in a Westminster Hall debate. In fact, there are so many Members that some are having to sit on the side. Many Members have said that they support my concerns on this matter.
If an organisation wishes to be registered as a charity, it both has to have charitable purposes and be of public benefit. The Charities Act 2006 states that it is not to be presumed that a purpose is for public benefit, so organisations applying to the Charity Commission for registration now have to demonstrate public benefit—something that comprises two elements: whether the nature of the charitable purpose is of benefit to the community, and whether those who may benefit constitute a section of the public. Charities that would previously have been registered without needing to demonstrate public benefit now need to do so.
In a debate in the House on the 2006 Act, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office said:
“The Bill preserves the existing law on the definition and test of public benefit, with one change. Under the existing law, there is the presumption that charities established for the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or the advancement of religion are for the public benefit… The Bill abolishes that presumption.”
The critical phrase is that
“The Bill preserves the existing law on the definition and test of public benefit”.—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 24-25.]
I shall refer to that in a moment.
The Charity Commission has the job of registering charities and applying the public benefit test to those charities that previously would have been exempt. One such charity is the Preston Down Trust of the Plymouth Brethren—a religious charity. In the main, I will confine my speech to public benefit as it relates to religious charities, as opposed to charities that relieve poverty or advance education, both of which have recently been the subject of charity tribunal cases.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the number of colleagues in attendance. I share her views, and I will quickly speak for the Plymouth Brethren in my patch. Is she aware of the large amount of research on the social and community benefits of moderate religious observance? Is there not a case, therefore, for moving back towards the wider definition of social benefit that we had historically in this country?
Fiona Bruce
Yes, I very much agree. It is an enormous burden for organisations such as the Plymouth Brethren to have to prove public benefit, as I will demonstrate.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in this important debate. She will know that the Brethren run crusades called “every boys rally” and “every girls rally” that attract tens of thousands of young people into their halls. Those young people benefit from social education, physical training and interaction with their local community. That is a major public benefit, and if the big guy is able to crush the little guy, as the Charity Commission is trying to do, that will destroy the social benefit that that church delivers to the community across the United Kingdom. I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point in his characteristically strong manner.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on the Charity Commission’s bizarre decision. When gospel halls across the country apply to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be recognised as a charity, they are recognised as a charity, so the Charity Commission’s dichotomy is bizarre and must be put right.
Fiona Bruce
There are two more dichotomies: there appears to be no challenge to the rating exemption of gospel halls, provided that they have an appropriate notice outside; and, as devolved legislation, charity registration is dealt with differently in Scotland. I understand that the charitable registration of religious organisations in Scotland is not being challenged, so we could have a bizarre situation whereby, for example, a Brethren church in Scotland is registered as a charity and is able to claim tax exemption through the HMRC regulations, but its sister or brother church in England or Wales is not.
Earlier this year, the Charity Commission advised the Preston Down Trust’s solicitors that
“As a matter of law we are not able to satisfy ourselves and conclusively determine that Preston Down Trust is established for exclusively charitable purposes for public benefit and suitable for registration as a charity.”
That came as a complete surprise to the Plymouth Brethren organisation because it has been recognised as having charitable status for more than 50 years.
The Plymouth Brethren Church is a Christian Church that was established in 1828 as a breakaway from the Church of England and has some 16,000 members across the country. The Brethren’s Bible is the same Bible used by the Church of England and other mainstream Christian denominations with nothing added and nothing taken away.
The case is now the subject of an appeal by the Brethren to the charities first-tier tribunal and has been of extreme concern to Plymouth Brethren churches across the country since the Charity Commission refused the Preston Down Trust’s application, which was a sample application that effectively challenged the charitable status of up to 300 other Plymouth Brethren trusts, some of which are in Scotland.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate; there is clearly huge interest among hon. Members. In Reading, we have three gospel halls run by the Brethren that do very good public works. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case goes wider than the Brethren? The Charity Commission could be setting a precedent, which is something that none of us wants. Does she agree that we need to be careful to ensure that there is fairness and that we do not set a precedent that we will regret?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree. Some smaller Christian denominations are seriously concerned. I know who they are, but they do not wish to be named for obvious reasons. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of independent free Churches that potentially also have cause for concern but, incidentally, do not have the resources to appeal, as the Brethren have, to the tribunal.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is always a fighter for justice in the House. My hon. Friend mentioned resources, but is she aware that, to fight the case at the tribunal, the Brethren are having to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds that they could otherwise use for charitable activities?
Fiona Bruce
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is all right for the Charity Commission or others to say, “Oh, you don’t have to be legally represented before going to the tribunal,” but the case is of immense importance. Not to have legal representation when, of course, the charity commissioners are legally represented would at least be unwise.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Again, on resources, does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about the Charity Commission’s suggestion that assets may be seized from the Church if, after deciding that the Church is not a charity, the Charity Commission deems that those assets were obtained under what it might call the pretence of being a charity?
Fiona Bruce
I am aware of that problem. It demonstrates how complicated the issue is and why it must be fundamentally reviewed.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this is a test case on religion and the thin end of the wedge, particularly given that the Charity Commission’s letter says that even the Church of England would have to prove public benefit? Does she also share my concerns that the practices of the Catholic Church, in terms of the Eucharist, are very similar to those of the Plymouth Brethren being complained about by the Charity Commission? It is wrong to allow religion to be suppressed in the United Kingdom on any basis.
Fiona Bruce
That is a good point. It is also particularly concerning that in coming to its decision, the Charity Commission has decided not to treat as a precedent a High Court case some 30 years ago: Holmes v. Attorney-General, which held that the Plymouth Brethren’s Kingston Meeting Rooms Trust was a valid charitable trust, despite the Brethren’s well-known “separatist distinctives”; I am not sure that we would use that term now. The Court did so because those who were not members of the Brethren, provided that they came in the proper spirit and not a spirit of levity, were allowed to attend meetings of the Brethren other than Holy Communion and business meetings and furthermore because the Plymouth Brethren publicly attempt to evangelise by conducting campaigns in the streets and open spaces similar to the Salvation Army. Mr Justice Walton concluded in that case, which has held for 30 years, that
“it appears to be quite impossible on the evidence to come to the conclusion that there is a lack of benefit to the public”.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I endorse other Members’ comments. Is my hon. Friend suggesting, in short, that the Charity Commission thinks that it can put itself above the decisions of the High Court? Does she condemn that, as I do?
Fiona Bruce
The Charity Commission’s powers are to apply the law, not to make it. That is the domain of the House and the courts. The Charity Commission is a regulator, not a legislator.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In my constituency, and I suspect in everyone else’s, the Plymouth Brethren meeting hall has received a letter refusing the Brethren charitable status and saying:
“This decision makes it clear that there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”,
although not in the case of Druids.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The difficulty is that we as a House failed to define public benefit in the Charities Act 2006; it is left to the courts. What will happen is that those who can afford the most expensive silks to argue their case are likely to triumph. Does the hon. Lady think that public benefit is well defined as far as education is concerned? Eton and Harrow have charity status, but schools on inner-city estates do not.
Fiona Bruce
The position regarding public benefit in education was considered thoroughly in connection with the case to which I referred earlier, so I will confine my remarks to the issue of public benefit and religious organisations, which has not been examined or judicially reviewed for some time.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for taking yet another intervention; I think that there will be a lot of them. Public benefit and its connection to education is hugely important in my constituency. My constituents are surprised by the issue. The greatest impact that the Brethren have had in Montgomeryshire is to take over a school that the local authority had closed. There were four or five pupils. The Brethren stepped in and took over the school, and now it is hugely successful, respected and subscribed to by local people all over. That is a public benefit as worthy of charity status as any that I can think of.
Fiona Bruce
That is a good example of public benefit on the part of that group.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being extraordinarily generous; it is characteristic of her good heart and soul, and we all appreciate it. She and I, along with the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), met the new chairman of the Charity Commission in his office last Monday. He sought to reassure us that there is no anti-Christian bias in the Charity Commission, although I suspected that some of us were slightly more convinced than others.
I am as guilty as anyone else for the lack of clarity in the Charities Act 2006. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we must resolve the issue once and for all? She has done a great service today by demonstrating to the House and those outside the depth of concern and, in some cases, the fear that exists, which should inform any future legislative correction of the slightly ill-written 2006 Act.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman has put my reasons for securing this debate more eloquently than I could have. It is meant to put on record the level of concern about the issue in this and the other House. There are many questions to be asked, and I hope that at least some of them will be asked today. He is right that some of them relate to the Charity Commission’s powers.
The notable Julian Rivers, professor of jurisprudence at the university of Bristol, has far more experience of the issue than probably anyone in this room. He has raised numerous concerns about the Charity Commission’s decision on the Preston Down Trust, particularly about the extent to which the Charity Commission considers that the abolition of the presumption of public benefit calls into question earlier cases involving religious charities, given that the former Minister said in the House in 2006:
“The Bill preserves the existing law on the definition and test of public benefit”.—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 24.]
There is clearly serious confusion. A much fuller discussion of Julian Rivers’s concerns is contained in his book “The Law of Organised Religions”. He raises several concerns about this area of law that are now far from academic as a result of the Preston Down Trust case.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Like many others, I have many constituents who are worried, not just for the Plymouth Brethren who work and form part of the community in South Derbyshire but for other religions as well. We have a big Catholic group in our area that does a lot of social work and has a big social constituency. I find it interesting that this could be the tipping point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply.
Fiona Bruce
Yes. Professor Rivers says that the law on the registration of religious charities
“is not completely clear and coherent… careful legal analysis and authoritative restatement would be helpful.”
One area of concern and confusion that he highlights is what we mean by the phrase “a section of the public” in relation to religious charities. If an organisation is to pass the test for charitable registration, a section of the public must benefit, but are not members of a denomination—the Methodists, for example—also members of the public? It has been suggested that the Charity Commission is trying to turn the question on its head by thinking of a class as restricted and therefore not consisting of members of the public, rather than as public because it is, on the face of it, open to all. The issue sounds complicated, but it is very important in the Plymouth Brethren case, in which it is clear that openness is a crucial factor in the Charity Commission’s thinking.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is it not the role of Parliament to protect the rights of minorities?
Fiona Bruce
Yes, and to ensure that when they need access to justice, they can get it expeditiously and inexpensively.
The net result of the Charity Commission’s decision is that the Plymouth Brethren have had to go to enormous lengths to demonstrate the public benefit of their organisation and charitable activities by shouting about them in a way that they would not ordinarily have done.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Lady on raising this important issue. She will agree that the Charity Commission’s decision has caused extreme hurt to members of the Plymouth Brethren, because although there are big religious groups around, the Charity Commission seems to be willing to stamp on what it believes is a smaller group that is easily taken on. There surely is a rightful feeling that the Plymouth Brethren are being discriminated against.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This organisation is now bearing the brunt of efforts to clarify the law in this area. Is that right? Nicola Evans, a specialist charity lawyer, said recently in evidence to the Public Administration Committee:
“At the moment the process for trying to clarify an area of law seems to rely upon it being done at individual charities’ expense.”
That alone should give us cause for concern.
In denying Preston Down Trusts charitable registration, the Charity Commission’s key concern appeared to be openness; that is, that non-Brethren members of the public might not be able to participate in their services. The Charity Commission questioned whether a notice board identifying the Preston Down Trust’s meeting hall as a public place of worship, with contact details,
“is sufficient to demonstrate meaningful access to participate in public worship.”
I have a copy of this notice board. It does not seem that different from—in fact, it seems to contain more details than—the average Church of England notice board. Pardon me for referring to those; I am simply picking that example because we see them so often. The notice board states:
“Brethren’s meeting room”
and
“place of public religious worship”.
There is a reference to registration and the words,
“For details of gospel preachings and meetings for Bible teaching please phone”
two phone numbers
“or write”
to an address. It also states:
“A Gospel Preaching will be held on Sundays at 5 p.m. and all well-disposed persons are welcome to attend”,
and so forth.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Is not my hon. Friend’s key point that the Plymouth Brethren are not a closed sect, but an organisation that welcomes the public to participate in its activities and an important part of a vibrant community, such as the one in Swindon that I represent?
Fiona Bruce
Absolutely. There is a complete distinction—I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify it—between the Brethren and closed orders of nuns, for example, which understandably do not have charitable status. The Brethren are different, living and working within local communities.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way.
There are gospel halls in my constituency. I have found the Brethren to be a welcoming group with a strong sense of community who do good work across their community, as other churches and faith groups do. It would be wrong if Brethren trusts lost their charitable status. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could set a worrying precedent that would be applicable to other churches or faith groups, which could lose their charitable status?
Fiona Bruce
I agree.
With reference to openness, the Plymouth Brethren are sometimes subject to caricature, partly because often we do not know them personally, but they are far more open than people might realise. For example, they have a modern website—Plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org —which has a “Contact us” page, enabling any member of the public to find their nearest local Plymouth Brethren church and service times. Hon. Members may be interested to know that I recently attended one of their services in Liverpool and I found nothing out of the ordinary in their Christian teaching at that service.
Some of the Brethren’s practices and the way in which they seek to live out their Christian lives are not necessarily what we would want to adhere to—I would not—but all denominations have their differences. The Brethren’s women wear headscarves in services, but so do women in other Christian denominations, such as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and men in other religions, such as Sikhism. They do not vote. I do not agree with them on that and we have discussed it. I can certainly say that not one hon. Member here has a vested interest in standing up for them today. They say that scripture says that God sets up and deposes authorities, and that is their principle for not voting. At least they do not vote on principle, rather than because of laziness, but they do engage with and respect the democratic process in many other ways.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I am glad that there are no no-go areas in Congleton for my hon. Friend when canvassing. I congratulate her on her lucid, diligent contribution to this debate. There is asymmetry in the apparatus of the state being used against the Plymouth Brethren. Does she agree that, given that there have been 20 public benefit assessments between 2009 and 2011, until the law is properly clarified to the satisfaction of legislators there should be a moratorium on any further assessments?
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. It seems that the chief offence of the Brethren in today’s liberal secular society is their genuine, sincere desire to live by the Bible in a more literal sense than many of us seek to do. Is that so bad, particularly when looking at the good that results? I will come on to that in a moment.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Not for the first time, the hon. Lady is doing great service to this House by raising an important issue. She is touching on a point that she made before, which is that this issue has forced the Brethren to mention things that they would not previously have shouted about. Quiet, unobtrusive service is at the heart of religion and that should be respected. The notion of limited interaction with the wider community has now forced the Brethren, including the Brethren in my constituency, to whom I pay tribute, particularly in Sale and Northenden, who have had to produce a catalogue of the service that they provide to their community. Will the hon. Lady join me in praising their efforts?
Fiona Bruce
I will, indeed. The catalogue that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is a booklet entitled “Public Benefit: the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church”, which contains so much that the Plymouth Brethren demonstrate by way of public benefit that I cannot possibly do it justice in a speech. I shall place a copy in the Library for the record.
The Charity Commission expressed
“concerns about the lack of public access to participation in…Holy Communion.”
Many Christian denominations limit participation in Holy Communion in some way, most notably, I understand, the Roman Catholic church. Other hon. Members may be able to testify to that. Restricting access to Holy Communion should not be a reason for refusing charitable status.
The Charity Commission also commented on the beneficial impact of the Preston Down Trust, saying that it is
“perhaps more limited than other Christian organisations as their adherence limits their engagement with the wider public”.
The point has been well made: that is simply because people do not know about what they have done, because they have not broadcast it, but have modestly gone about their work.
The Charity Commission says that
“the evidence in relation to any beneficial impact on the wider public is perhaps marginal and insufficient to satisfy us as to the benefit of the community.”
I hope that, as a result of the production of the booklet, it reconsiders that view.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to the attention of the House. Does she agree that the presence of so many hon. and right hon. Members from across the United Kingdom, and the contributions that have been made—all singing from the same hymn sheet—is an important, powerful signal to the Government and the public that something has to be done, if not by the Charity Commission, then by Government in this House.
Fiona Bruce
Absolutely. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that so plainly.
“Public Benefit” by the Plymouth Brethren church—I will touch on some points for the record, to get them in Hansard—includes support for families, care for young people, disaster relief, visits to prisons, hospitals, donations of substantial funds to many charities, including the British Heart Foundation, Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Macmillan nurses, and dozens of others.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Would not my hon. Friend say that that exemplifies the fact that not only are they there for the promotion of religion, but for the promotion of education and the relief of poverty? The work that they do in my constituency and elsewhere, particularly in providing work and jobs for people who might not otherwise have them, should be commended, not opposed or obstructed.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically astute point and I thank him for it.
I specifically want to mention the Preston Down Trust, because it is the subject of the appeal. I have additional information about its social action in the past two to three months, including the provision of free meals to members of the public, assisting at accidents, collecting for charity and street preaching and the distribution of tracts. It has that in common with all Plymouth Brethren churches. Surely no one can argue that they do not provide public benefit.
On the website, the Brethren say that
“we hold the same faith as every true Christian, we publicly preach the gospel and engage with the broader community through fund-raising and volunteer work. We work and live alongside people from many walks of life and many Brethren own businesses that collectively employ thousands of non-Brethren. Brethren characteristically are caring, active and contributing members of their local community.”
Someone might say, “Well, they would say that, because they are saying it about themselves”, but I assure people that I have spoken with a constituent of mine who describes himself as a lapsed atheist. He is certainly not a Christian, by his own admission, and he works for one of the several Plymouth Brethren businesses in my constituency. His name is Glyn Rushton, he is happy to go on the record and he works with Delta Balustrades, where he is a production manager. He got his job through the jobcentre in 2005 and he has the utmost respect for the Brethren, describing them as model employers:
“I would always view Brethren as a force for good in any area. They are industrious, independent minded people who care about those around them. They set out to solve more problems than they create and rarely feature in crime statistics”.
His point about the positive aspects of the Brethren way of life should not go unnoticed, and I draw attention to page 17 of the booklet to which I referred earlier.
It is important to raise the issue of information circulating on some internet sites that gives a negative portrayal of experiences to do with the Plymouth Brethren. I understand that such matters have not been a cause of the Charity Commission deciding to refuse charitable status. In a letter of 7 June, the commission states:
“We do not have any evidence before us at this time to demonstrate disadvantage which may serve to negate public benefit.”
No one would claim that any organisation is perfect, but if the Charity Commission has any such concerns the proper thing to do is to investigate thoroughly and to substantiate or discount them. At present, however, having checked with the Plymouth Brethren as late as this morning, I understand that that is not an issue in the appeal case of the Preston Down Trust.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I commend the hon. Lady, as others have done, for initiating the debate. She and I served on the Bill Committee that considered the Small Charitable Donations Bill and, in that context, it is clear that the Government have gone to some lengths to make quite elaborate and convoluted provision to take care of the differing set-ups and networks of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, though not much by way of smaller Churches. Does she accept that we Members of Parliament might have an opportunity, when that Bill returns to the Chamber in a couple of weeks, to support an amendment that would clarify that local churches as well as community amateur sports clubs should be included in the working definition of charities and at least come under the definition of community benefit?
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I remember that aspect of the debate, and certainly that is something that could be considered.
Members have spoken about how many other faith groups are concerned about the legislation. It is interesting, therefore, to look back at the debate in 2006, when the Charities Act was passed in the House. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), now the Leader of the Opposition, said that
“it is right that public benefit must be shown, but…at least for religion, the obligation will not be onerous. We have accepted, and I think others have, too, that making provision for people to attend acts of worship is clearly a public benefit. It is clear in case law, and it will remain part of the charity law of this country. Religions have nothing to fear.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2006; Vol. 448, c. 96.]
It would appear that religious charities now very much have something to fear.
Several commentators have remarked on the issue, and I want to draw attention to some of them, because it is important to demonstrate that concern exists about it among not only a huge swathe of parliamentarians but people in authority outside the House. Last week, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, said he was “very concerned” and was quoted as saying:
“I do believe we need to hold the Charity Commission to account as much as they hold any religion and social service to account. I believe that Christianity has a huge and great record in terms of serving the community, in terms of education and all kinds of ways.”
Other people have expressed concern. Lord Boateng wrote to me:
“I believe the Charity Commission has exceeded its mandate and needs to be reined in. I believe people of faith have much to fear from this decision and will support all measures brought to Parliament to reverse it.”
A highly respected charity law practitioner, Robert Meakin, has written a book, which I have with me, called, “The Law of Charitable Status: Maintenance and Removal”—quite a triumph to read over the weekend, although I say so myself. His words date back to 2008, although I notice that the copy in the Library was in pristine condition:
“The law of public benefit is confusing and as a result the Commission cannot be confident of its powers to remove charities from the Register… there is a need for greater clarity about the Commission’s powers.”
Interestingly, he also refers to a 1948 House of Lords decision in a famous case, the National Anti-Vivisection Society v. the Inland Revenue Commissioners, in which Lord Simonds stated that
“only a radical change in circumstances, established by sufficient evidence”
should justify holding an object not to be charitable which in earlier ages has been held to possess that virtue. As mentioned, the Plymouth Brethren have been registered as a charity for some 50 years.
Mr Meakin also says that it should be rare for charities to be removed from the register. He says that there is no power in the Charities Act authorising the commission to decide questions of charitable status judicially:
“Its role is to register charities and in doing so it must follow general law but there are so few decisions of the Court and legislation that the Commission is forced into becoming a de facto law-maker”,
rightly pointing out the importance therefore of clarifying the issue. He also mentions the importance of public confidence, in the commission and in the status of charitable registration.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is interesting that the Charity Commission has not justified the action that it took. More importantly, is it not important for us to pursue the matter now, because who will it be next?
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.
Mr Meakin wrote about the importance of securing public confidence, and so many questions are now being asked that we must raise the issues broadly, to ensure that we maintain public confidence in charitable status. Many people rely on it when giving to and involving themselves in support for charities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
“I understand that removing charitable status for religious bodies because of supposed lack of public benefit is dangerous territory. Doing so would almost certainly open up a minefield of civil actions in the courts and could quite possibly breach the conditions of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to religious discrimination. In addition to the obvious loss of religious freedom, the cost to the taxpayer of lengthy legal actions is worth taking into consideration beforehand.”
A leading Queen’s counsel and specialist in the field, Hubert Picarda, has given his opinion that the Preston Down Trust
“is a charity and should be registered as such… Where under the old law it has already been determined that a purpose is beneficial there is no necessity to determine…any further point. The requirement is already satisfied.”
He also mentions that, over the years,
“the conventional advancement of religion is intrinsically for the public benefit, has been accepted as such and there is no reason for creative bureaucratic intolerance to replace judicial and settled community tolerance.”
Fiona Bruce
I am coming to the end of my speech, Members will be relieved to hear, but I shall give way.
Mr Wilson
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the outstanding case that she is making today. May I bring her back to the Charity Commission? I think that it states that nearly 20% of registered charities are there for the advancement of religion and all the good causes that go along with that. It registers hundreds of Christian charities each year. What does she believe is really motivating the Charity Commission in this case? Is it because the Plymouth Brethren are different, a minority group and much easier to suppress as a result?
Fiona Bruce
It would be wrong of me to try to divine what is in the minds of the charity commissioners in that way, but we are perhaps seeing a clash between what we might call a secular liberal society and the traditional society that we have seen in our country up until now, which has respected the role of religions, particularly the Christian Church, over many centuries.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I wish my hon. Friend the best with her speech this afternoon. Does she agree that the Charity Commission has not kept to the general assurances given by Ministers in the previous Government that charities such as the Plymouth Brethren would not be affected by the Charities Act? In effect, the commission is going against Parliament itself.
Fiona Bruce
That is a valid point; indeed, the Christian Institute, which is a non-denominational charity representing 3,800 churches from almost all Christian denominations, is concerned about the issue. It says:
“If the Charity Commission can now find against the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church in the case of Preston Down Trust, this would appear to have grave implications for other Christian churches and groups, the majority of which apply some restrictions on access to sacraments and benefits… We believe the time is ripe for an Attorney General’s reference to properly clarify the law on public benefit with regard to religious charities. Furthermore, we would like to see modifications made to the role and structure of the Charity Commission, to prevent it adjudicating on theological matters, a function which it is ill-suited to discharge.”
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend, who is a very good woman indeed, agree that the Charity Commission has behaved absolutely disgracefully in this regard? Does she further agree that, rather than waiting for some ministerial diktat, it should admit that it got its decision wrong and overturn it immediately?
Fiona Bruce
One way of resolving this immediate issue would be for the charity commissioners to look at all that is in the public benefit. That alone should be sufficient for them to review the case.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whose speech I am enjoying immensely—it is extremely good and gets right to the heart of the issue. She has also been very generous in giving way to countless Members. My concern—she has rightly moved on to this issue—is whether every Christian charity up and down the country will have to start preparing books and websites to get information out, so diverting them from the important work that they do. Will they have to do that to protect themselves just in case there is a problem? That would be outrageous.
Fiona Bruce
I entirely agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
One option for trying to resolve this issue has not been mentioned: perhaps the case of the Preston Down Trust, which is, after all, a test case, could be referred to the upper tribunal, so that it was heard by a High Court judge of the chancery division and any decision would have appropriate status. That solution could be looked at. We certainly require a serious analysis by legal experts in this field, including an analysis of the case law on public benefit, what it means for religious organisations and how far organisations such as the Charity Commission should stand in judgment over religious groups. All those issues must be considered, and it is not merely an academic exercise, because the rubber has hit the road for the Plymouth Brethren. Who will be next?
Fiona Bruce
I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend, who was, I believe, the shadow Minister when the Charities Bill was debated.
Mr Turner
I was, and in a way this is a reflection on me because I allowed the relevant parts of the Bill to go through. However, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) backed us up, saying that the provisions would not make any change. There is a grave danger in terms of not only religion, but education and poverty; the trouble is that we may bring charities to a situation where they are no longer charities, and they will lose everything. If it were the Church of England, we would lose our churches—it is as dire as that.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have read the debate that he mentions, and I give credit to him, because he raised these concerns and he was given assurances, but those concerns are now coming to pass. The implications that he highlights go to the heart of religious freedom in this country—that is how far this issue goes.
The concerns highlighted today are shared by a great number of other Members, who were unable to attend, because they have other commitments, but they have asked me to put on record the fact that they support my concerns. They are my hon. Friends the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is now here, for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson). If I have read out the name of anyone who is here, I apologise.
In closing, may I reiterate what I said at the outset: I am not an expert in this field, and I have had to research and come to understand it?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Stephen Metcalfe
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she agree that the Charity Commission should have spent a little less time going down the legal route and a little more time talking to people in the community? I have had the privilege of working with the Brethren for more than 20 years in a professional capacity—my family’s firm used to do a lot of their printing—and a lot of the things described as public benefit are real and genuine. If the Charity Commission had got out and talked to people who engage with the Brethren, but who are not part of the Brethren, it would have found that the public benefit spills well into the wider community, as I have seen. Surely, public benefit can be what is set by example, as well as what is practised in a religious sense.
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that. On that point, I shall rest our case.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. I thought you were applauding me there—[Interruption.] You were. I have five applications to speak. I intend to call the shadow Minister at 3.40 pm, so that gives Members an idea of how long everyone can speak for.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) again on making an absolutely brilliant case. We have already heard the detailed history of that case, and I have just two substantive points to make, because I am conscious of the fact that other Members want to speak.
First, from what I have seen of the Brethren in my constituency, they do work for the public benefit, and their meetings are open to non-Brethren. Secondly, what we need from the Charity Commission is consistency: we cannot have a situation in which some charities are seen as more equal than others.
As hon. Members know, I am not a Christian; I am of the Jewish faith. I do not even have a Brethren gospel hall in my constituency, but, my goodness, I have seen the work the Brethren do, and I wish I had one, I really do. The charitable work they do is quite remarkable, as are the food days, and I have seen that just over the border, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). We should pay tribute to that.
In their submission to the Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member, the Plymouth Brethren said:
“In accordance with our beliefs…we practise separation. This is based in a moral distinction between right and wrong…It means that Brethren will, as a matter of conscience, mix socially and by association with other Brethren. However, it would be wrong to assume that Brethren do not take their place in the local community…we live as normal members of the community and take an active part in community life.”
As I said, I have seen that. In the Committee, the Brethren made the important point that the High Court confirmed the charitable status of gospel halls in case law in 1981. Because of the problem that the 2006 Act created, as has been described, charities are now bearing the cost of deciding the same question. The reason, as my hon. Friend set out, is the words “public benefit”. On its website, the Charity Commission states that public benefit must be identifiable, balanced against any harm, appropriate to the charity’s aims, and not “unreasonably restricted” in a way that for example might prevent some people from benefiting from the charity’s work. To take the example that I just mentioned, surely giving out hot meals to the hungry passes all the Charity Commission’s public benefit tests. That is what the Brethren do on a regular basis.
As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, he and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton met William Shawcross last week and we have written to him with a list of all the works to which the Brethren are committed. To be fair, Mr Shawcross is a new appointment and I welcome the Minister’s efforts to appoint someone of high calibre and independence. I suspect that when he looks at the matter closely, he will be just as baffled as we are that a small Christian community, which is open to the public and distributes Bibles and hot food to people on the breadline, has had its charitable status revoked. As I mentioned, the Brethren have now had to spend several hundred thousand pounds fighting that discrimination. That is outrageous: it is why I am here today, and why I have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and have tabled an early-day motion. What happened is completely unjust and cannot be right. Parliamentarians must do something about it.
Secondly, if Charity Commission officials are going to force more religious charities into the tribunal process, we need consistency. For example, there are recent cases of charities that have retained their status despite alleged links to terrorism. A few weeks ago, The Guardian reported that the Al-Muntada trust fund had been accused of passing money to a militant Islamist group in Nigeria. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a rainbow of niche charities, whose public benefit some will struggle to see. For example, as has been mentioned today, the Druid Network exists for “Informing, Inspiring and Facilitating Druidry as a Religion”. Members can make up their own mind about that. I have no problem with charitable status for Druids, but let us have some consistency. Why have the Brethren been singled out from all the religious organisations? What about the “Earth and Space Foundation”, which offers cash to scientists if they research “environmentalism in outer space”? I do not pass judgment on those organisations, but how can their activities be charitable if a community Brethren hall that hands out food to the homeless and does good work, serving the community, is not? The public benefit test must be consistent and the Minister should examine that. Either that, or Parliament should repeal the 2006 Act as has been suggested.
I am going to call a spade a spade. I believe that there is something rotten in the Charity Commission. I cannot understand why the Brethren, good people who do so much in their communities, have been singled out. I believe an inquiry is needed into the role of the Charity Commission to consider how it came to make the decision, and to publish all the e-mails and correspondence —everything that led to the decision, to enable us to understand why the Brethren were singled out. I, like other hon. Members, have received correspondence from Christian groups in my constituency; they express fear about what the Charity Commission is doing. They are worried about a ratcheting effect towards secularisation, and I wonder if a hidden agenda is at work in the Charity Commission.
The commission’s decision also puts the tax status of hundreds of charities in doubt. The Brethen are trying to deal with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the question of how each hall should communicate with its donors—thousands of people making donations with gift aid declarations, and making claims with their self-assessment returns. The charities do not know what to tell them. What has happened is unjust and inconsistent and is creating fear in many churches, not just in Harlow but across the country.
Finally—and I say this as a Jewish person—the Brethren were tragically persecuted by Hitler in the second world war and suffered terribly in Nazi Germany. That is all the more reason, given what they have gone through, why we, as an open, tolerant and decent society, in a country that I am proud to live in, should ensure that the Brethren are treated properly and get the charitable status they deserve.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
Order. I remind everyone that we will have to limit speeches to about four minutes, to get everyone in.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made a typically robust and passionate defence, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
As has been said, the debate is about more than just an arcane analysis of section 17 of the Charities Act 2006. This is about a battle, about the secularisation of society and about calling a spade a shovel, which is quango activism. The Charity Commission has previous on this, in its class-based and politicised campaign to attack independent schools. The crucial question that we must ask is whether the present situation is what Parliament intended in 2006. Did it intend to undermine, attack and traduce the very salt of the earth, who reach out inclusively to help some of the most marginalised groups in society and get them to change their lives? I would never have voted for a Bill that I thought would do that. At the least, we are right to draw attention to the significant concerns expressed by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, that what is happening is the beginning of a process of pushing Christians out of the public square and delegitimising Christian religion in the name of bureaucracy and process. I cannot be part of that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the danger of part of that process might be the calling into question of denominational education—Catholic education and Church of England education—if the Charity Commission is going to stick by the point about the purpose not being simply for the benefit of the followers of the religion or teaching? The large Christian Churches will end up having to explain themselves to those faceless people.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point, as did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who is not in his place. Are we really going to inflict a massive audit process on people who have better things to do: helping the most vulnerable people, in a practical, pragmatic way? There is an issue of fairness as well. Are we to sit by and let an unfashionable minority—a minority that in general people do not understand—be picked off by the apparatus of the state, with such asymmetry? If we are talking about public benefit, is it really a public benefit that my constituents’ taxes are effectively being used to hound people who do good in society? That is not a good use of those taxpayers’ money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made it clear that the Charity Commission has some serious questions to answer. As I said earlier, it undertook 20 public benefit assessments between 2009 and 2011, and we need at the very least to re-examine what those achieved and what the ultimate agenda is. It is wrong and inappropriate for the state apparatus to be used against the people whose great work in our communities we have all seen.
I will say just two more things, because others want to speak: we must have a moratorium on any more assessments, until we have properly clarified the law with Ministers, if necessary by way of primary legislation, so that we do not have a grey area between Parliament and the pernicious actions of the super-quango that decides it will cast people out and cause them not to be viable in their communities. That is imperative for the House. Also, it is time that the Attorney-General was invited to invoke his powers to sort out the situation in the interim. The issue is not just defending Christianity: it is defending all faith communities, and it is about fairness and equity. If parliamentarians are here for nothing else, we must defend those things.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
I must reduce the speaking time to three minutes now.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for an excellent deconstruction of the problem, and other hon. Members for taking so many interventions—which makes it rather more difficult to make an original point at this stage.
I just want to say one thing, which I think that there is time for. The hon. Lady and other hon. Members focused on the public benefit test itself and on how perhaps the Plymouth Brethren, who have a school in my constituency and who, I find, are a first-class bunch, could pass it. It seems to me that, in the kindest way, we might be missing the point. We seem to have conferred on a committee of the great and the good the ability to arbitrate on the intrinsic value of any religion and to allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to reward one religion over another and make it easier for it to flourish. That is fundamentally unhealthy in our democracy. As the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Congleton said, that was not the intention in the legislation. I have a sense of what it was intended to do, and there have been one or two allusions to that. This is an unforeseen consequence.
It is a pity the Charity Commission has chosen to take the line that it has, and I agree with some of the more pejorative comments about the commissioners’ direction of travel. It is not for this Chamber in general to propose legislation, but it is fair to say—perhaps the Minister will take this on board—that it looks as though the 2006 legislation, as encapsulated in the Charities Act 2011, was miscast and misdrafted, and that the House should revisit it.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I add my congratulations to those already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I intend to speak briefly to highlight the issues and concerns that have been raised with me by members of the local Plymouth Brethren community in my constituency.
There is no school for Plymouth Brethren children in my constituency, and they attend local schools. There is no gospel hall, and I will return to that. The Plymouth Brethren own a significant number of local businesses. They employ 110 people, far from all of whom are members of the Plymouth Brethren. They are open to employing other people, who work for them with enthusiasm and willingly because they are known to be excellent employers.
For several years, I was a resident of King’s Somborne—a village in my constituency with a big community of Plymouth Brethren. They were regularly seen between the two mainstays of village life—the post office and the pub—preaching and sharing the gospel with people passing by. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that they were open and willing to engage with passers-by and wanted to talk to us about their faith. It was always an enlightening experience.
There is no gospel hall in Romsey, and the ruling on the Preston Down Trust suggests that if the Plymouth Brethren achieve the aim of establishing one, which they are actively seeking, they will fall into the same trap and difficulties that the trust experienced. I freely admit that I am not an expert on charity law. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for her enormous work on the issue. She has certainly taught herself to be an expert. I recognise a group who seem to have been unfairly treated, and I would argue that they have been treated with suspicion and mistrust by the Charity Commission. That was not the aim in the legislation and in the 21st century is entirely unacceptable.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate the matter today, and I hope that we will see some sense. A moratorium has been called for, and I look to the Minister to return some common sense to the argument.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this important debate. We do not have a gospel hall in Macclesfield, but we have members of the Plymouth Brethren, who are obviously passionate about their beliefs and concerned about the precedent that they believe is being set, not just for their faith group, but for others throughout the country. I agree wholeheartedly with the views set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on that precedent. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) share my concern about where to stop? We might start by targeting the Plymouth Brethren, but end up with the Church of England. What does my hon. Friend think of that?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where will it stop? I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her speech. I want to speak briefly as the Member of Parliament for the Preston Down Trust. It is not in Lancashire, but in Paignton in Devon.
It is right that organisations must demonstrate public benefit, but the key is the clarity with which the Charity Commission interprets public benefit. There are three organisations near Preston Down road, which is where the name of the Preston Down Trust probably came from. One is an evangelical Christian charity, Anode, which gives furniture to people who require it. Another is Preston Baptist church, which offers a place for services and has a cafeteria where people are charged for cakes and tea. In the middle is the Brethren’s gospel hall, where they were giving away food and Bibles a couple of weeks ago. They seemed to be doing exactly the same as the other two organisations, which have charitable status.
Three things are wrong. First, a long-standing religious organisation is being treated differently from similar religious organisations. Secondly, the Charity Commission lacks clarity in its advice. Thirdly, the length of time that the commissioners have taken to reach a conclusion must be considered. I want to ask the Minister two questions and hope to finish within three minutes. First, will he address the definition of public benefit, and do so soon? Secondly, will he ensure that the Charity Commission understands that definition and turns its attention elsewhere?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
My hon. Friend is ably representing his constituents in this worthwhile debate, as other right hon. and hon. Members have done. Will he add to his questions to the Charity Commission the puzzlement that I am sure we all have? In the legal curiosity with which it embraced clarification of the law, was it arbitrary or discriminatory to choose to do so in this case and to place the burden of making that case on the Brethren?
Mr Sanders
I am not a lawyer, but if I were, I am sure that I would say it was arbitrary.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
If the two remaining speakers will keep their contributions to two minutes, they can both speak.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Five hundred years ago, a certain monk nailed a certain thesis about his faith to the doors of a cathedral. Today, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with Lutheresque zeal, has nailed her colours to the mast of this place and made an important statement about how the House is standing up for the little fellow as he looks down the barrel of the gun of the big fellow who is nothing more than a bureaucratic bully with his views on religious faith. I congratulate her on that stance.
The Brethren are the thin end of the wedge. Many hon. Members today have indicated what may be the end—who next? Far be it from me, the Member for North Antrim, a reformed and tight little Prod, to stand up for the needs of the Roman Catholic Church, but I will do so without fear or favour, because if the Brethren Church is first, who is next? The hon. Lady referred to people being unable to take communion in the Roman Catholic Church. It would be hypocrisy for me to attend mass and wrong of me to assume that I could take communion. I would not be allowed to. Will the Roman Catholic Church face being bullied and browbeaten by the Charity Commission? I hope not. I also hope that the Minister is listening, because this is the thin end of the wedge. He must take a stand, and do so now. He must do as the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have done and nail his colours to the mast.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I will not say ditto completely to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on raising this important issue. It is clear from the indications that the Charity Commission has given that this will be an escalating premise if the precedent is allowed to stand, which is why everyone should be worried.
In an intervention, I referred to the Small Charitable Donations Bill, which provides the opportunity to say who should qualify for gift aid on additional schemes. In the Bill Committee, I asked the Economic Secretary whether HMRC, in its conduct of gift aid and the associated scheme under the Bill, would be bound by the Charity Commission’s decisions, or whether it would make its own judgment. He said that HMRC would apply its own understanding of the Charities Act, but I now understand that HMRC is withholding some gift aid payments from Brethren trusts pending the outcome of the tribunal. It seems to me that Members who are rightly putting questions to the Minister today and thundering at the Charity Commission for the adverse implications of what it is doing will have our chance, as parliamentarians, in a couple of weeks’ time. I hope that some of us gathered here can put our heads together and propose an amendment to the Bill that will ensure the concept of community buildings, as provided for in the Bill, is not confined, elaborately and convolutedly, to the Catholic Church or the Church of England, but applies to all Churches.
Like other hon. Members, I think it is terrible that the Brethren have to try and advertise the benefit that they provide to the public. They help the public in my constituency and they are passionately and socially engaged. The emphasis in their living guidance on separation should not be misinterpreted and misrepresented, as the Charity Commission has done. They have never wanted to advertise it—no Pharisees they—and they should not have been driven into this position. As parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to draw a line under this in a couple of weeks.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Is it not the case that we also had chance, as I did, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, to question the Charity Commission and others about the implications of the changes in legislation? Assurances were given then that there was no intention of this kind of thing happening. When we scrutinised the matter on the Floor of the House, it was said that there was no intention of such a thing happening. To use another analogy, the Charity Commission is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It has overreached itself, and it needs to get back into line with what Parliament intended and with Select Committee scrutiny. If it cannot do so, we must ensure that we get it back into line.
Mark Durkan
I fully endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We should remember that the legislative buck stops with us, and we will have the opportunity to draw a parliamentary line under this in a couple of weeks’ time.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their discipline in what has been an amazingly busy debate. I now call the shadow Minister.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) not only on the way in which she presented the debate, but on the way in which she included so many people, giving a lot of hon. Members an opportunity to air their views through speeches and interventions. It has been a good example of how this part of the parliamentary process can work and enable people to express their views.
The 2006 Act was not intended to prevent religious organisations from doing their vital work. That was said by Ministers at the time, as many Members have mentioned. I was not a Member of the House then, but I know that the intention was sincere. It was not simply an attempt to cover up the aim of narrowing down those organisations that could receive the benefits of charitable status. We have to hold to that as the stated intention; it still is the position of the Opposition. It is true that the Act stated that no particular type of charity—not only religious charities, but others too—should have an automatic presumption of public benefit. Until that is changed, that is the view that has been taken.
Eric Joyce
With respect to my hon. Friend, that is the point: there is a fundamental problem with the legislation. What many people have argued is that there is a flaw with the 2006 Act, so it is not a case of saying, “If a problem arises”. There is a problem and we need to sort it out.
Sheila Gilmore
I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that this is inherent in the law, that we should take away the provision stating that there should not be any automatic presumption and that people should have to demonstrate public benefit. Mission creep is possible in any charitable organisation. There could be a suggestion that by defining oneself as a religion or any other kind of group, one does not have to demonstrate public benefit. What I am struggling with—after listening to what Members have said today and after being lobbied on the issue—is precisely how the Charity Commission came to its decision. Having said that, it is not for us to second-guess the tribunal. I was taken with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Congleton that in order to get the matter dealt with, perhaps it should be taken to the upper-tier tribunal as swiftly as possible, rather than meandering much more slowly through the process. It was held up by the Charity Commission while waiting for decisions in other cases.
The commission says that it does not see this a test case for all religions, and that it has not embarked on a process of trying to use this as a step towards something else, as people fear. I hope that that is correct. The 2006 Act stated that there was provision for a review of the Act’s workings, and in relation to the question of public benefit. That review has taken place and Lord Hodgson’s report, which was delivered to the Government some five months ago, was inconclusive. It said that there was no need for the definition of public benefit to be reviewed. Perhaps there is now an opportunity for a full debate on that review, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister says on the matter. I do not think that Parliament has had chance to debate that yet, so perhaps we could reopen why the question of why the review decided that the matter did not have to be reconsidered.
It is important that we have good, strong charity law and that the system ensures, as I think Members would agree, that what constitutes public benefit is clear. There are a number of opportunities to consider that, including in response to Lord Hodgson’s review, which is an issue that I hope the Minister will address.
Mr Stewart Jackson
The key issue is that the Charity Commission does not appear to have an evidential basis for saying that the Plymouth Brethren is sui generis—in other words, that it is unique and different from every other organisation doing something similar. That is why there is significant concern in that organisation, as well as worry among other people that they will be next.
Sheila Gilmore
Perhaps it will come out more fully in the appeal and in further work that is being done. I have some sympathy with those who say that many other religious organisations, at certain points in their operations, do not allow others to take part. On the face of it, the decision does not seem to quite fit with what people have said the organisation is doing.
Stephen Pound
I want to avoid getting involved in theological minutiae, but may I tell the hon. Lady that the Roman Catholic Church denies communion to our fellow Catholics on many occasions? There are theological reasons for that. It is not about inclusivity; it is about the sacred nature of the host.
Sheila Gilmore
That is indeed clear in the nature of certain religious observances.
We have to move forward on this issue, and it is particularly significant that we have such a lot of interest here. I hope that the Government and the Charity Commission, which I am sure is watching the debate with great interest, will take on board what people have said and the strong feelings that have been expressed today. As the hon. Member for Congleton said, no one in this room could be accused of currying favour in return for votes, as we have been approached by an organisation whose members, for their own reasons, do not vote. However, we are concerned and many hon. Members have shown the depth of their concern for those of their constituents who may not vote for them but who are carrying out important work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is very well regarded on both sides of the House and by me, and she deserves every one of the compliments that have been showered on her this afternoon. I congratulate her on securing a debate that has mobilised, at my last count, more than 40 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. That is to be noted by the Government, but also by the Charity Commission.
It is important to unpack the debate, because there are three issues that are linked but need to be discussed separately. The first question is whether the Charity Commission has made a good or bad decision in relation to the Plymouth Brethren. The second is: what are the implications of that decision? That is the “Who’s next? What’s next?” question—the concern about a ripple effect across other religious groups. The third question is whether what we have set up to protect the integrity of the charity system in this country, to protect taxpayers and donors, is fit for purpose in terms of defining public benefit. It seems to me that those are the three issues, and I would like to try to deal with them in the time that I have left.
I have to say up front that I will be forced to pick up a slightly different hymn sheet from the one used by the rest of the hon. Members who spoke this afternoon. It is a little less rousing, but parts of this tune need to be heard. My first point is about the Charity Commission. “Rotten”, “discriminating”, “a bureaucratic bully crushing the little guy”, “a hidden agenda”, “unjust”, “inconsistent”, “arbitrary”, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”—this has been quite a rough day for the members of the Charity Commission. It could be worse—they could be working in the BBC—but that is very tough language and it communicates the strength of feeling in the House on this issue.
However, I have to make an important point about the status of the Charity Commission. We have to remind ourselves that it is a non-ministerial Department. It is not subject to ministerial direction or control. It is an independent registrar and regulator. Its independence is set out in statute, and Ministers and the Government have no power to intervene in Charity Commission decisions.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
The Charity Commission seems to be imposing a state dogma of uber-inclusivity on a religious group that has decided to be moderately exclusive. Does my hon. Friend the Minister think that that is very big society and, as the big society Minister, is he not prepared to do something about it? That is why we have elections, is it not?
Mr Hurd
That was a characteristically well made point, but actually the view that I have, as a Minister, on this individual decision is not relevant, for the reasons that I have just given. I am here to stand up for the commission’s freedom to take the decision, because that is the process that we have set up.
The second point is that, in exercising its functions, the Charity Commission is answerable to the courts. As many other hon. Members said, the Charity Commission’s decision not to register the Preston Down Trust has been appealed to the first-tier tribunal. As that decision is subject to an appeal, there is a limit to what the Charity Commission can say at the moment, and I hope that hon. Members will understand that there is a limit to what I can say in response to the debate, because I do not want, as a Minister, to be accused of trying to influence a tribunal.
Damian Hinds
If this had reached a point at which an attack was being made on the Church of England or the Catholic Church, would we still be saying that it is not right to question what the Charity Commission is doing and it is answerable only to the courts?
Mr Hurd
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend back on this side of the Chamber; I was worried for a moment when I saw where he was sitting earlier. I will deal with the specific point that he raises when I deal with the second part of the argument, which is: what are the wider implications of the decision?
I remind hon. Members that before the advent of the Charities Act 2006, it was generally considered that charities for the advancement of education, the advancement of religion and the relief of poverty benefited from a presumption of public benefit. The 2006 Act removed that presumption. The aim was to create a level playing field whereby all charities had to show their public benefit. As has been pointed out, the Act did not seek to define public benefit—we will return to that—but instead continued to rely on its common law meaning. It gave the Charity Commission the job—we should recognise that it is a difficult job—of producing guidance on public benefit, and promoting awareness and understanding of the public benefit requirement. One of the Charity Commission’s functions is to determine whether organisations that apply for registration are charitable in law. It is for organisations applying to show that they are charities, not for the Charity Commission to show that they are not.
Before the advent of the 2006 Act, the Exclusive Brethren were “excepted” charities and were not required to be registered with the Charity Commission. The 2006 Act required certain excepted charities to register with the commission. It is that change that has led to the application to register by the Preston Down Trust. According to the Charity Commission, its decision not to register the trust was based on the content of the application as it was presented. The commission says that it was not able to conclude that the Preston Down Trust was a charity in law based on the material that was presented to it in the application. The commission’s decision was explained in a letter dated 7 June. I can certainly place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House for hon. Members who do not have one.
Fiona Bruce
Can my hon. Friend the Minister comment on whether he thinks that the decision reflected what was the will of the House when the Charities Act was passed in 2006? I would be interested in his view and I believe that he can give it. I checked very carefully with the House of Commons Library before the debate that this issue is not sub judice or subject to those rules and therefore comment can be made on it in this Chamber.
Mr Hurd
We can all express our opinions, but I genuinely think that in this matter the substantive point that I have to make is that as things stand, unless the Charity Commission takes a different view on the evidence presented to it by the Brethren, it is for the tribunal to decide. I think quite genuinely and I say with real sincerity that it would be unhelpful for me to express a personal view as a Minister in that context.
I will move on to the second point. My answer to the first point—was this a good or bad decision?—is that as things stand, unless the Charity Commission changes its mind, it is for the tribunal to decide. A serious concern was raised about a ripple effect from the decision. There were concerns that the Charity Commission is pursuing an anti-Christian agenda. I am satisfied that that is not the case. As a public body, the Charity Commission is bound by equalities duties and by law must not discriminate in its dealings with different religions or faiths. A fact that has not emerged from the debate is that the Charity Commission continues to register hundreds of Christian charities each year, including charities that were previously excepted. That fact has to be reconciled with various statements—some of them quite wild—about the commission discriminating.
Mr Hurd
I have very little time and I would like to close on the third substantive point: is the process fit for purpose? The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) rightly said that this issue had been reviewed by the Government. We asked Lord Hodgson to review all the regulation and legislation affecting the sector. His preliminary conclusion was that the system that we have at the moment would be difficult to change, because there is a substantial challenge in trying to condense hundreds of years of case law into a rigid, fixed definition of public benefit in this place. His view was that it was better to stay with this flexible system, which can evolve over time and whereby things are determined by case law. We are reviewing that recommendation. This debate has certainly contributed to that. My position is that we will publish an interim report as a response to Hodgson, but we want to hear in particular the evidence from the Public Administration Committee, which has been looking into the issue. However, this debate has been extremely helpful.
I, like most other hon. Members in this Chamber, would like this issue to be resolved speedily. It has dragged on too long. I share hon. Members’ concerns about the cost that that imposes on the Brethren. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the decision, I urge all who are involved to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible.
Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)
May I ask those members of the public who are leaving to do so quietly so that we can move on to the next debate?
Alcohol Advertising Regulations
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Dobbin. I had several reasons for requesting the debate. The first relates to the need for appropriate rules to regulate the marketing and promotion of alcoholic products. It is also an opportunity to underline the important contribution that advertising makes to the UK economy and a chance to champion the creative industries. It is useful to have the debate to balance calls from those in some quarters who wish to see tighter regulations or even a complete ban on alcohol advertising.
My interest in the subject comes from a desire to support and champion the growth of the creative industries, and the importance of advertising as part of that. In difficult economic times, we need to recognise and support the value of the creative industries. They are one of our most important sectors and the UK is among the world leaders. Advertising alone contributes £7.8 billion to the UK economy and is the second biggest contributor to the UK’s creative industries, which accounts for 3% of gross domestic product. The UK advertising spend is forecast to grow by almost 4% this year. The value of advertising exports amounts to £1.5 billion-worth of services—nearly 2% of all exports. A large part of that value, over many years, relates to alcohol advertising.
The UK has shown the best innovation in the sector and our original thinking and advertising is admired throughout the world. I hope you will indulge me for a minute or two, Mr Dobbin, to remind you, the Minister and Members present of some of the iconic adverts that have been great successes in the UK, have been sold all over the world and have attracted international spend from product marketers. The Heineken adverts were extremely successful and innovative; a whole series was built around a humorous situation in which someone or something, after failing a task, would drink a glass of beer, which would improve their performance—be it shooting plastic ducks in a fairground or speaking English with a cut-glass accent. It all ended with the slogan that the beer
“refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach”.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I cannot do anything but intervene. When I was in my early teens, I found that Heineken reached parts that nothing else could reach. The only issue is whether that was exclusive to Heineken.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps he thought,
“I bet he drinks Carling Black Label”
could have been the slogan we use.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is taking us on a merry dance down memory lane, and I am sure that he could keep our attention all afternoon. Some of us all too well remember precisely the same quality in adverts for cigarettes. I remember Terry Thomas and Eric Sykes advertising cigarettes—marvellous. I remember the John Player league and playing cricket sponsored by John Player. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not saying that the advertising justifies the product regardless of what that product is. Would he honestly make a case today for cigarette advertising with the same passion, fury and determination he brings to alcohol?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that valid point. No, I am absolutely not proposing a repeal of the legislation and regulations, but there has been a reduction in the consumption of alcohol in recent years and advertising needs to reflect that. I shall come on to that point a little later.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
What is my hon. Friend’s view of Top Totty, the beer that was banned in the House of Commons earlier this year?
Alun Cairns
As someone who consumed Top Totty that evening, I remember the beverage and the fuss made about its title. I understand that the attention drove the sales of Top Totty much higher than was ever predicted, which only demonstrates that such controversial decisions work against the objectives of those who wish to tighten the restrictions.
You may remember, Mr Dobbin, that before those helpful interventions I was trying to take you and hon. Members through some of the great adverts we remember from yesteryear. The Hofmeister bear is another example. Everyone was encouraged to “follow the bear”. Who could forget the Guinness toucan or the Carling Black Label series? “The Dam Busters” goalkeeper was one of my favourites.
Stephen Pound
One of Ireland’s finest poets, Brendan Behan, was employed by Guinness to write a slogan. He took the money, but could not come up with one until about a day before they were due to go to press. He finally came up with the ultimate slogan: “Guinness, it gets you drunk.” Does that not at least have the benefit of honesty and is that not what this is all about?
Alun Cairns
All advertising should of course be honest, but we need to accept the irony intended in some advertisements. If I am allowed to go on a little further, Mr Dobbin, I hope to cover some of those points.
All the adverts I mentioned and hon. Members referred to, and many others, were exported all over the world, creating income and wealth for the UK economy. Unfortunately, they could not be shown on television these days, even after the watershed when children would not be expected to be watching. The reason is that the industry responded to demands, not necessarily from the public, but from some lobby groups and politicians over the past decade or more. Those demands formed part of what was labelled the “nanny state”. I want to use today’s debate to celebrate the success of the adverts, and urge the industry and regulators to respond to the widest audience, rather than to those who seek to create a debate and overregulate.
We should not ignore the part that such adverts play in developing skills and supporting the creative industries. Hugh Hudson, director of the Courage Best adverts and the Cinzano series with the Leonard Rossiter and Lorraine Chase, went on to direct the multi-Oscar winning “Chariots of Fire”.
Alcohol advertising is well regulated and robust. The Advertising Standards Authority enforces advertising codes, written by the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice. The first considers print, outdoor, online and cinema, among other areas, whereas BCAP is responsible for television and radio. The industry has also set up its own marketing watchdog, the Portman Group, which upholds standards to an arguably higher level than the ASA. Ofcom also has a part to play and has recognised the benefits of the self-regulatory approach.
Broadcasting adverts are my main focus in the debate. The core principles behind the adverts are that they should not be targeted at under-18s or imply, condone or encourage immoderate, irresponsible or antisocial drinking. Specifically, there are restrictions on the types of programmes that can show adverts. They should not appeal to children or suggest that consumption would make the drinker a better person. Although I support such views, it is, as ever, the interpretation of the rules that creates the difficulties. The areas that I have just outlined are where the iconic adverts fall today.
When it is said that Heineken refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach, it could be suggesting that it makes someone a better person or that the ducks that shot back in the fairground could make alcohol appealing to children. Similarly, the Hofmeister bear, could, it is argued, encourage children to consume alcohol, as could the famous Guinness toucan. The Carling Black Label advert suggested that individual performance was enhanced through drinking the beer.
The interpretation of the rules is rather harsh. Surely, people recognise a slogan as part of a humorous advert and do not take it literally. Do they really think that the beer made the difference, or that the Hofmeister bear or the Guinness toucan would drive young children to drink?
Research from MacKintosh and Moodie in 2010 found that exposure to alcohol marketing has not been proven to cause children to drink. It did not find an association between 13-year-olds’ awareness of alcohol marketing and the onset of drinking or the volume of alcohol they consumed two years later. Even if a link is proven, it is likely to be small and outweighed by other factors, such as family environment, peer behaviour, socio-economic status and personal issues.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation research concludes that parents are the most important influencers when it comes to the potential consumption of alcohol among children. Furthermore, the interpretations of the rules apply also to the promotion of weaker lager and prevent it from being marketed as a better alternative.
In credit to the industry, it self-regulates effectively. The Portman Group seeks to drive standards higher, and I hope that this debate will show that the commentary is not only one way and that a common sense approach is needed. Further evidence of a responsible approach is shown in the drive over recent years to reduce the alcoholic strength of drinks. One of the newer Heineken adverts is one such example. It depicts a young man drinking one bottle at the start of the evening and then water for the rest of the night. Unlike his heavy drinking friends, he goes on to gain a partner. That results in the slogan:
“Sunrise belongs to moderate drinkers.”
Although that seems a reasonable line, the advert was banned on UK television because it was judged that it was wrong to link even moderate drinking with social success or sexual attraction. Surely, that is an example of a positive step by the industry. Although it is showing that is ready to respond to demands, it is not succeeding with its responsible promotion. It is also ironic that that advert was the original background to the Heineken campaign that I mentioned earlier. The brewer’s objective was to market a weaker beer, over its premium lager. As a result, it sought to present its product as a lighter, refreshing drink that was also weaker. That is what the slogan was trying to depict.
Over-regulation and over-interpretation are evident. Some lobby groups have called for the French “Loi Evin” model, which is a complete ban on alcohol advertising on television and a significant restriction on radio and printed media. The policy was introduced in January 1991. Even the French anti-alcohol groups now accept that the effect of the law was weak at best. The French Parliament has concluded that it was ineffective in reducing high-risk drink patterns.
The consumption of alcohol per unit has reduced by 20% since 2005, with all age groups falling. The lowest decrease is among the over-65 age group. Consumption is at its lowest since 1999.
Breweries are reducing the strength of their alcohol, too. Stella Artois, Budweiser and Becks have reduced their alcohol content from 5% to 4.8% ABV. Although that may be due to tax reasons, there has, none the less, been a fall. Surely, if society wants to encourage drinkers to lower their consumption of alcohol, the industry must be allowed to promote lower strength drinks effectively and creatively to consumers. That demonstrates that the management and control of alcohol consumption is much broader. It is important to balance calls for greater restriction with evidence that is available elsewhere. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Treasury and the Department of Health have equally important parts to play in that regard. It is important to recognise, too, the pragmatic role that has been played by the Minister. He recognises the need for controls, yet understands the positive opportunity that appropriate advertising can play in a broader sense.
No one would deny the success of the Olympics in promoting fitness and health among the population, yet Heineken was a lead sponsor. Appropriate advertising was used to promote wider well-being. Alcohol sponsorship accounts for 12% of sports sponsorship—£300 million in total, of which £50 million goes to grass-roots sports.
Beer generates £8 billion in UK tax revenue each year, and the beer and pub sector supports almost 1 million jobs. The issues involved are far broader than just health. Health is exceptionally important and central, but the requirements of DCMS, the Treasury and the wider community must be paramount in deciding on the regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Dobbin, as the Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
Mr Vaizey
Formerly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on securing this important debate, on all the work that he does in this House on many issues, especially Welsh issues, and on the work that he does on behalf of his constituents. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound).
It is pertinent to say here that the hon. Member for Ealing North takes health issues incredibly seriously. Last night, I got on the tube at about 11 pm, after the votes, and I saw the hon. Gentleman clutching a bottle as he made his way home. I looked carefully and saw that it was a bottle of innocent’s freshly squeezed fruit juice.
Mr Vaizey
It was a shaming moment indeed. As the hon. Gentleman was discovered, I decided that I should tell the Chamber the story.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan for giving us a tour of some of the great television adverts. When he mentioned Carling Black Label, I was reminded of another story. It might be apocryphal—perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing North will tell me whether or not it is true. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is famous for making remarks during the State Opening of Parliament. On one such occasion, when Black Rod had knocked on the door and marched towards the Speaker to summon the Commons to the Lords, there was a dignified pause as he drew himself up to his full height. The hon. Gentleman was heard to say, “I’ll bet he drinks Carling Black Label.” It just goes to show how some alcohol adverts have pervaded our culture.
None the less, this is a serious subject. First, it gives us an opportunity to discuss the British advertising industry. I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan when he raised the matter in oral questions that I would not lose an opportunity to praise the strength and diversity of our advertising industry. Advertising has contributed £6 billion to the UK and roughly £1.5 billion of exports. It employs some of our finest artists, designers and writers. It also plays a crucial role in supporting our creative industries. Without advertising, we would not have the vibrant newspaper, radio, film or television sectors that we have in the UK today. We might not have “Downton Abbey”, “Father Ted” or even “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here.” Without doubt, advertising makes a contribution to our culture.
However, with the great power that the advertising sector holds and the large audiences that newspapers, radio and TV programmes can reach, there comes responsibility. The advertising industry is very good at regulating itself. The Committee of Advertising Practice draws up codes that are fair and strong for both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising, and the Advertising Standards Agency, which I should mention is 50 years old this year and thus only a few years older than the hon. Member for Ealing North, does an excellent job of administering those codes. Both the CAP and the ASA help to ensure that advertising in the UK is legal, decent, honest and truthful. We work closely with the ASA as well as with Ofcom to make sure that rules on advertising continue to provide the appropriate levels of consumer protection, especially for children and young people.
It is important that we take the power of alcohol advertising seriously. The majority of our fellow citizens enjoy their drink in a mature and responsible manner, but we know that alcohol harm amounts to something like £21 billion a year and that something like half of all violent crime can be attributed to alcohol. It is therefore important that alcohol advertising is properly regulated.
My colleagues in the Home Office recently launched an alcohol strategy to counter irresponsible drinking behaviour and the Department of Health launched its responsibility deal to drive greater industry responsibility and action to reduce alcohol misuse. The CAP broadcasting code simply means that alcohol adverts should not condone such misuse. Among other things, alcohol adverts must not imply, condone or encourage irresponsible or immoderate drinking; they must not imply that alcohol can contribute to someone’s popularity or confidence; they must not link alcohol with sexual activity or sexual success; and they must not portray alcohol as indispensable or taking priority in life. Scheduling and placement restrictions mean that adverts cannot be placed adjacent to programmes likely to appeal to audiences under 18 or, for non-broadcast adverts, in a medium where more than 25% of the audience are under 18.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan that, as a general rule, too much red tape can stifle creativity, but I have to say that these regulations on alcohol advertising do not seem to be onerous or excessive. They simply seem to be the kind of rules that any responsible alcohol manufacturers, or indeed advertisers, would enforce on their own promotional material. In fact, it is probably worth noting that a number of the rules on both the targeting of alcohol adverts and the behaviour demonstrated within them are covered by the EU’s directive on audiovisual media services, so these are Europe-wide regulations and it is obviously important that we comply with them.
Stephen Pound
There is something about the mention of the EU’s directive on audiovisual media services that makes me leap to my feet immediately. The Minister is making an extremely interesting point when he talks about the stimulus to creativity and in some ways he is almost making the case for regulation being a stimulus to creativity. Hugh Hudson was mentioned earlier, and he went from a low point of making commercials to the high point of making the Labour party election broadcast that is known as “Kinnock—The Movie”; it was not massively successful, but it is remembered with great affection by those of us who were around at the time.
The point that I wish to make to the Minister is this. Are we not at a stage where the word “irony”, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) earlier, is the predominant factor within the industry? I am thinking of the John Smith’s beer adverts, such as the “top bombing” one and the one where Peter Kay kicks the ball out of the ground. Are we now in a situation where we perhaps need to stand back a bit from regulation, because the industry’s own self-regulation—particularly in the area of irony—appears to be moving very much in one direction? As someone who, despite appearances to the contrary, is not actually a drinker, that seems rather a healthy way to proceed, with self-regulation, and alcohol being advertised in an ironic sense but also in a way that recognises that it is a pretty central part of our lives.
Mr Vaizey
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that irony is important, and irony is something that we in Britain do very well. If it was something that we could charge for, it would probably be a very important export industry for us, and irony is also a key element in a lot of alcohol advertising.
I will not endorse any particular product. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular brand of drink, but I was struck by the irony of watching what I thought was a rather creative advert for an alcohol product that I happened to catch on TV the other day. It involved a man with a body shape not dissimilar to my own wearing a small pair of swimming trunks and marching down the beach as if he owned the place. That to me screamed “irony”, but it also screamed “creativity”.
Alun Cairns
The Minister mentioned the EU’s directive on audiovisual media services, which has a Europe-wide application. He will remember that I referred to the “Sunrise” ad, which has been banned in the UK but has not been banned across Europe. If the directive is the reason for that ad being banned, does that not lead us to the obvious conclusion that the directive is being interpreted more harshly in the UK than elsewhere in Europe?
Mr Vaizey
I will have to look carefully at the particular advert that my hon. Friend mentions. Without wishing to get too partisan, as it were, I must say that the ASA is one of the finest regulators in the world of advertising. It looks at issues very carefully and publishes detailed judgments. Although it is normally the case that European regulations complied with in one jurisdiction are complied with in others, it may be different for advertising and I will check how that directive applies. In fact, I am sure that it is different for advertising, because some countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, have much tougher rules on advertising products that are deemed to be harmful than other countries.
My hon. Friend has made his case that we should try not to stifle creativity in the advertising of alcohol. He has even said that doing so could lead to an increase in investment in the UK advertising sector. However, that argument has to be balanced against the fact that a relaxation in existing restrictions could result in an increase in irresponsible or under-age drinking, which is something that the Government are very keen to prevent.
Stephen Pound
We are at an extraordinary confluence in history where we have the opportunity, just across the channel, to see for the first time ever the consequences of a 160% increase in alcohol duty and a 20% increase in the average cost of a glass of French beer. We have an opportunity to study our Gallic cousins to see what the effect of those changes is. Will the Minister’s Department be looking in any way at the French experience in the light of the “Hollande impôts”, to see whether there are lessons to be learned or taxes to be avoided?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about what is happening in France. As far as I am aware, a number of different Departments are looking at that example: the Treasury, to see what it does to revenue; the Department of Health, to see what it does to levels of drinking; and no doubt the Home Office will also be looking, to see whether it has any effect on crime levels. However, we in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport only focus on it in relation to advertising and the advertising industry.
I am wary of the time, Mr Dobbin, so I will conclude. First, may I say that the ASA and the advertising sector as a whole have always been open to dialogue and quick to respond to issues? If they have been presented with clear evidence that advertising is socially indecent or dishonest, they have been quick to react. Secondly, self-regulatory bodies such as the ASA can react much more speedily to changes in public opinion, changes in technology or changes in technique than other bodies. It is much easier to update the CAP code than it is to change UK law. Thirdly, what must not be overlooked in the current economic climate is the fact that self-regulation of the industry comes at no cost to the taxpayer.
I support the current regime on alcohol advertising, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan is concerned that there may be one or two examples of the regulation being interpreted in a heavy-handed fashion. I sympathise with his opinion that rules and regulations can stymie creativity, but with regard to alcohol advertising the rules that are in place strike me as being responsible and not something that this Government would seek to water down. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for giving the House a chance to remind all hon. Members of the success of the UK advertising industry, its enormous contribution to the UK economy and its support for our creative industries.
Personal Independence Payments
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I welcome the new Minister to her post and wish her well.
I have brought the matter of preparing for personal independence payments—PIPs—to the House as a representative of a good number of people in my constituency who have come to me to ask for advice and to express their concerns about the replacement for the disability living allowance. I feel that the issue is so crucial and of such great concern to disabled people, in my constituency and the rest of the country, that we should keep it on the agenda. It is vital that we discuss the plans for personal independence payments now, so that we can be proactive in solving any issues, rather than waiting for them to become problems and reacting to them too late.
Let me start by saying that disability living allowance needed to be reformed. Crucial problems had to be addressed, about which people across the board were in agreement, but the reforms that have come through have raised a great number of concerns. I do not, however, want to talk about any of the flaws in the policy as a whole. It is far too late for that. We need to move past them now and look to the future, to ensure that the philosophy behind the policy—the slashing of the welfare budget—does not undermine its implementation and that the final regulations and guidance are designed around the needs of disabled people.
In its research, the Department for Work and Pensions has calculated that half a million people who would have been eligible for DLA, had it continued, will not be eligible for personal independence payments. That tells only half the story. Many other people will be significantly affected by changes to the system: 280,000 claimants will lose their entitlement to the enhanced or higher rate mobility allowance and some 370,000 fewer claimants will be entitled to standard or lower rate mobility allowance. Those people will also lose many of the benefits and necessities associated with DLA.
Scotland’s disabled people will be severely affected, with an estimated 74,000 people losing some or all of their mobility allowance. I can see why so many people in my constituency have come to me with their concerns. Library figures show that 1,260 people are likely not to be transferred on to personal independence payments. That is a huge number of people, and let us remember that many more will lose their entitlement to higher levels of benefit.
With so many people losing so much, we need to discuss what will happen to them. People who do not qualify for PIPs will need to look elsewhere to cover the loss in their income; people not entitled to PIPs may appeal such a decision and be left in limbo; and people will lose some of their passported benefits, because of the difference in the number of levels in the daily living category. There will be carers who lose their benefits, which will impact on both themselves and the people they care for.
We must discuss what happens in those situations and where people are to go for help. Why? Because so many of the constituents who are coming to us about the issue want to know exactly that. They are scared, and as their representatives, we need to ensure that we have done everything that we can to protect their rights. Their concern, which is mine, is about the process itself and how it will be conducted.
The PIPs system is intended to provide more face-to-face assessments than the DLA one. That raises several issues, the most important of which is that assessors should be given adequate training to enable them to identify disabled people’s issues and how they face such issues. That is an extremely difficult challenge, and I want guarantees that that has been thought through.
The number of disabilities is vast, and they vary from extremely physical ones to those that are less obvious to someone who has not been trained adequately. The system involves a very medical model, looking at what people can do, rather than what they cannot do. That might be appropriate for some types of disability. However, someone with a learning disability, for example, might be asked by an assessor, “How are you?” and they might reply, “I’m good.” Of course, they may be good physically, but such a conversation would not necessarily pick up the many problems that the person with a learning disability does not realise they have but needs support for.
Face-to-face interviews will be very stressful for those with mental health problems, who find it difficult to communicate with strangers. People with a different category of disability, such as those with acquired brain injury, need more time to consider and understand issues and find it difficult to grasp the scope and complexity of interviews. Will we have trained assessors for people with all those and other examples of disability? Will assessors have access to medical records with written consent? They need to be able to identify all issues correctly and must have the expertise to conduct interviews effectively. For example, I do not want what happened to one deaf-blind person during the trial period to happen to others. She was unable to be assessed as the assessors could not find, and had not asked for, a deaf-blind manual interpreter.
Will we have trained assessors for disabilities the symptoms of which cannot be seen, such as those caused by a stroke? I asked that very question about whether additional training would be provided to assessors, and I was told that clear guidance has already been received and that there are
“no plans to provide additional training.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 64W.]
I have heard many horror stories that suggest that that might not be the case. We need to learn from the problems caused by the lack of training and awareness in employment and support allowance and work capability assessments and incorporate the lessons learned into a better system for PIPs.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share this concern? I welcome the fact that there will be some piloting with a small number of applicants, but that pilot is scheduled to last for only two months before the start of the wider roll-out to new applicants. That will not give sufficient time to ascertain what the problems might be and certainly not to evaluate them and make changes.
John Robertson
My hon. Friend is quite right. Even if the Government learn lessons from the pilot, will they be ready to go back to the drawing board to look at the role of assessors? Somehow, I doubt that they will be.
We need excellent assessors, who can see the nuances of difference between disabilities and are fully trained to identify and advise those they assess. That is the first issue that I hope will be addressed by April 2013. The guidance provided to assessors is another source of concern for disabled people and charities. I am interested to know whether the Government have changed their mind on whether they will consult on the guidance once it has been drawn up. Assessors would be helped greatly if they had clear and effective guidance in front of them.
An aspect of the issue that is close to my heart, as hon. Members may be aware, concerns the identification of mobility issues for blind and partially sighted people. I campaigned for an automatic entitlement to the higher rate of mobility allowance for cane and dog users. That is being lost in the PIPs system, along with many other automatic entitlements. Many people are concerned that that will create an unnecessary burden for disabled people, whether or not they eventually receive the higher rate. Will the Minister restate her reasons for creating that additional burden?
There is also concern that, under the new guidance for PIPs, guide dogs will be seen as the only evidence of mobility issues for blind and partially sighted people. I have heard rumours that the final guidance will include canes as well as guide dogs, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that that will be the case. We cannot go backwards when dealing with such people.
The guidance must be all-encompassing and provide for all types of disability. It must also recognise that being disabled can be a lifelong condition and a lifelong drain on income. The Department for Work and Pensions has published various case studies that show how PIPs would work. For example, referring again to blind and partially sighted people, one of the studies shows someone who has been living with sight loss for some time receiving a lower award than someone with the same impairment but recently diagnosed. Costs do not diminish over time, and as people learn to live more independently, they might need more help and money to deal with what they can then do. The Government want to put those people back rather than help them to go forward. People should not be penalised for having learnt to live with their condition, and the Government must consider that.
Regarding the guidance that assessors receive, I have raised a number of points that concern many of my constituents. Again, I would be interested to hear some assurances from the Minister that the guidance will be designed to reflect the multitude of disabilities. I have spoken about how we can ensure that the 1,260 people in my constituency who will lose out on PIPs, along with the hundreds of others who will not qualify for higher rates, do not lost out because of untrained assessors or inadequate guidance. We must now address what happens to the people who do not qualify for PIPs.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and I look forward to the Minister’s replies. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable that 48% of disabled people should not have employment, along with the well-being and stronger financial position that comes from that, and that PIPs, with the regular reviews, are a step in the right direction for many disabled people who want to work and are able to do so?
John Robertson
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we see Remploy factories being closed down and other areas where there is no work for disabled people, yet we try to tell them they have to find employment. If there was employment, believe me, most people who are disabled would want to take it up, and right away. Unfortunately, the realism of the work market at the moment is that there are not the jobs for every person who would like one, never mind every person who is disabled.
I asked a question about the notice given to someone who is not eligible for PIPs and was told:
“Where entitlement to personal independence payment has not been established the DLA will stop shortly after the decision notice has been sent.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 837W.]
The vague “shortly” shows an absolute lack of evaluation of what it will mean in practice. I have subsequently received another letter in which the same word is used as a time frame. That is not good enough. Far more thought and consideration needs to be put into what that will mean for people who lose their benefit. How long will they have to find another source of income? Will there be enough time for them to find other sources of benefit from the Government?
In oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Professor Roy Sainsbury said that based on the 1990s take-up rates of between 50% and 70%—we can probably assume that the rate has increased a little—perhaps as many as 25% of disabled people still do not claim DLA. We can therefore only assume that the people currently claiming DLA are those who need it most, and we can therefore also assume that they will be the people most affected by its loss. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society will now have the complicated responsibility of navigating the PIPs system, and those who have already been identified as vulnerable should be given specific attention during the handover. We need clearer answers on how long DLA claimants will have before the benefit is stopped and on what kind of help they will receive to get them over the initial period.
We can also assume that a number of appeals regarding PIPs are likely. In most places, the assessments are to be administered by Atos—a company that is notoriously bad at making accurate assessments. We already know that it got one in five ESA assessments wrong between October 2008 and November 2011, so I am certain that many people who are not eligible for PIPs will want to appeal the decision. In Scotland, the system will now be run by Salus, but I am sure that many people there will still look to appeal. We must ensure that the lessons learnt from the ESA and work capability assessments are not lost. I would like to ask that the process for people who are appealing their decision is properly conducted. Will their DLA be cut, and will they be expected to find another source of income?
I would also like to ask about how the loss of DLA and the higher or enhanced rate of mobility for PIPs will impact upon carers. I have more than my fair share of carers in my constituency, and if money is lost to them what do they do about caring, and how will carers be looked after? I am sure that they will continue to care, but they will struggle to pay their bills at the same time. We must give carers the respect that they deserve. They save this country billions of pounds every year. I am interested to hear how the Minister will deal with that.
My final point is on passported benefits—a key concern for my constituents that alerted me to the practical problems with PIPs. The Motability scheme, for example, is paid for through the higher rate of benefits. As I explained earlier, 280,000 people will lose their entitlement to higher or enhanced rate mobility, and a large proportion of them are likely to have their Motability vehicle seized. They will be unable to make the payments for the vehicle, and if they have already been relying on it—I am certain that some people will still need such a vehicle despite not being eligible for the higher rate—what will they do to get around? Will they be left in a state of isolation? At what point will their vehicle be seized? Will they be given time to get another mode of transport?
I hope that the impact of losing the higher rate of mobility has been carefully considered, because it will make a massive difference to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. There will also be an impact on blue badge holders and concessionary travel benefits, and holding separate assessments for passported benefits will not only cause stress for people who have lost their DLA, but incur extra costs for the taxpayer. As I have said before, the aim of the policy is to save money, so this all seems pointless and unnecessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing the debate. I recognise the contribution that he has made in campaigning for rights for disabled people down the years, including his significant involvement in recent changes to disability living allowance. I also welcome his acknowledgement that DLA is a benefit in need of reform; we need to ensure that we get it right.
The starting point, therefore, must be that the Government remain committed to supporting those in greatest need, so that they can live independently. However, we also must ensure that the right financial support gets to the right people for the right reason. After all, the Government spend £50 billion a year on benefits and services for disabled people. It is worth remembering that DLA has not been fundamentally reformed since 1992 and that the expenditure increased by a third between 1998 and 2010. More than two thirds of the current case load has an indefinite award, and because people’s claims simply are not systematically checked or updated, there are significant overpayments and underpayments. Twenty years later, we are left with a system that is a lifeline for many people, but it is widely acknowledged that we need to reform it.
The reforms are about targeting support more effectively and keeping the best elements of DLA—the ones that disabled people value—but also about bringing the benefit up to date and fit for the 21st century. I assure Members that we are fully committed to the implementation of the personal independence payment from April 2013 and that we are on track for delivery. We will start with small volumes of new claims in the north-west before the national roll-out begins in June 2013. I will not go into the details of that, however, because the hon. Gentleman has raised some specific points.
It is important to get the assessment and assessor training right, with an emphasis on the importance of assessors being able to identify the wide range of barriers that people with disabilities and impairments may face. The Department for Work and Pensions has set clear standards for providers on the skills, training and competence expected of those assessors. We will work closely with the providers to ensure that training is of that required standard, and we will approve the training plans only when we are fully satisfied that they meet the necessary quality. All assessors will be health professionals with broad training in disability analysis, as well as training on specific impairments. Although we expect assessors to have good general knowledge of health conditions and impairments, they do not need specialist knowledge of particular conditions.
John Robertson
I totally disagree with the Minister’s last statement. There are certain times when specialists are required. Putting the onus on the assessor to make a decision on something that they know very little about suggests that the process is more about ticking boxes than an actual assessment.
Esther McVey
If I had reached the end of my paragraph, I might have answered those questions.
Assessors will have broad knowledge and specialist knowledge, but the assessment will not be medical; the assessment focuses on outcomes and how the health condition affects the individual. We recognise, however, that assessors might need support on mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments when assessing individuals with, for example, mental health conditions, learning disabilities or autism. As such, we require providers to have mental and cognitive champions, as recommended by Professor Harrington.
Sheila Gilmore
There are more people to be assessed and reassessed for this new benefit than there were for the employment and support allowance, which I accept is very different. One problem that we have encountered is that there are only two mental health champions for the whole of Scotland. Can the Minister reassure us that that number will be increased, because we are dealing with larger numbers?
Esther McVey
Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right that the assessment is very different, but we have to take forward the knowledge that we have learned. I have had many meetings on the need for more champions to provide the knowledge, so that people can have confidence when they are being assessed.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the continuing good influence of Professor Harrington is worth noting when considering such issues?
Esther McVey
I am running short of time, and I have a lot of answers to give to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West.
Jonathan Lord
I am very grateful, and I will be brief. A lady came to see me the other day with a friend. She was absolutely delightful, and people who talk to her would not know that she has long-standing mental health issues. I was assured by her and her friend that the following day she would be capable of virtually nothing. How is that going to be judged in the assessment? Can her medical records and letters from doctors and experts support such an application and be taken fully into account?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend raises a fair point. He is correct that we will not take a snapshot in time; a view will be taken over a year and, equally, it will be based on whether the claimant needs support during a part of the day, not for the majority of the day. All those factors are being taken into consideration.
Assessment providers are being given clear guidance on how to carry out the personal independence payment assessment. That will include aspects such as when to gather further evidence and when to conduct a paper-based review of evidence, rather than a face-to-face consultation.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West asked whether the guidance will address the use of long canes by blind and partially sighted people. The Department’s guidance for providers will be relatively high-level. The guidance will not list specific conditions, nor will it tell assessors how to advise in certain cases. To do so would go against the fundamental principles of the personal independence payment assessment, which is that it will be an individual assessment that considers each claimant’s personal circumstances.
Although we do not intend to run a formal public consultation on the guidance, we will keep it under review and will consider any comments received from stakeholders. We also expect assessment providers to work with stakeholders, as they develop their own, more detailed guidance and training products.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the number of people who will lose their benefit as a result of the changes. I would like to make it clear that it is very difficult to generalise about who will leave the benefit. Entitlement to PIP will be based on individual circumstances and the impact of disabilities, not on what conditions people have.
Some people will receive more support; some will receive broadly the same; others will receive less; and some will leave the benefit altogether. I fully acknowledge that, but equally, given the 3.3 million people who are on DLA, we understand that it is not a static benefit but a dynamic benefit: some people’s conditions will stay the same; some people’s conditions will worsen; and some people’s conditions will get better and, with the right support, they will no longer need the benefit.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have legislated to carry out two biennial independent reviews of the PIP assessment, its criteria and operation within the first four years of the introduction of PIP, so that we can learn and adapt from our experiences.
The hon. Gentleman asked for specific clarification on the arrangements for blind and partially sighted people. He also asked whether we will be making changes to the mobility activities to take into account those individuals who use a long cane, rather than a support dog. Although it was never our intention to limit support to blind and visually impaired people who have a support dog, I am aware that issue has caused a lot of concern.
Although I cannot confirm now the changes that we intend to make in the final draft of the assessment criteria, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to ensure that assessments fairly reflect the needs of blind and partially sighted people. I am aware of the strength of feeling on that issue. The final assessment criteria will be published soon—I will be able to say more then—and I hope that that is reassuring. I fully acknowledge all his work in that area.
I am checking the clock, and I want to get through as many questions as I can, so I will move on to appeals.
A decision being overturned on appeal does not always mean that the original decision was wrong. Often an overturn is due to the claimant providing new information to the tribunal that is material to the original decision. That is why PIP will be one of the first benefits to follow new rules from 2013 that allow us to identify and address incorrect decisions fairly and robustly without the need for full appeals in all cases. That is more proportionate, fairer for the claimant and better value for the taxpayer. Once a claimant has been informed that they are not entitled to PIP, their benefit will cease and they will not receive it during the course of their appeal.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about how the changes will affect those in receipt of carer’s allowance. We expect that the introduction of PIP will not affect the overall size of the carer’s allowance case load or the expenditure on that benefit. We recognise the important role that carers play, which is why both rates of the daily living component will form part of the gateway to carer’s allowance.
Officials from the Department are working closely with Motability to assess the impact of the introduction of PIP on its users. Only 33% of the 1 million disabled recipients of the higher rate mobility component of DLA are Motability customers. That makes it difficult to predict the precise impact of caseload changes or the number of Motability users. We are continuing to work closely with Motability to ensure it is ready for the introduction of PIP in April 2013.
I hope that my comments have reassured hon. Members that the introduction of PIP is on track for delivery in 2013. Our proposals have been developed following extensive collaborative consultation with disabled people, and we continue to work with disabled representative organisations and disabled people.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Flexible Parental Leave and Flexible Working
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
The Government believe the UK economy should be supported by a framework of laws that ensures we have a strong and efficient labour market which is flexible, effective and fair. Today the Government are announcing their response to the flexible parental leave and flexible working elements of the modern workplaces consultation. The response details a package of measures that will further enhance the flexibility of the labour market and will allow businesses more freedom in how they manage their staff. These measures will encourage fathers to take a greater role in caring for their babies and enable working families to be able to share caring responsibilities in the earliest stages of a child’s life. In addition, we are extending the right to request flexible working to all employees.
A new system of flexible parental leave
The new system will allow working parents to take leave in shorter blocks; to intersperse periods of work with periods of leave and to take leave at the same time if they choose to. They will also be able to share leave between them in a way that suits them best. In order to allow concurrency of leave (where the woman is on maternity leave and her partner can be on flexible parental leave at the same time), we propose to enable a woman to specify in advance the date she intends to end her maternity leave and for the remaining leave and pay to become immediately available as flexible leave and pay for her partner to take. This will enable a family to be at home together for a time if they so wish.
Women with partners where they both meet the qualifying conditions for the flexible parental system will be able to return to work early, or commit to ending their maternity leave on a specific date, and share the untaken balance of maternity leave and pay as flexible parental leave and pay. The length of flexible parental leave will not exceed the balance of untaken maternity leave, and the amount of statutory flexible parental pay will not exceed the balance of untaken statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance available at the point at which the woman returns, or commits to return, to work.
The 52 weeks of maternity leave currently available will remain in place as the default position for all employed women. Women who are currently eligible to receive statutory maternity pay (SMP) or maternity allowance will continue to be able to do so for 39 weeks.
We will be providing the right for fathers, or partners of pregnant women, to take unpaid time off work to attend two antenatal appointments with their pregnant partner.
We will increase the child’s age limit on unpaid parental leave deriving from EU legislation from the current five years to 18 years, giving each parent the right to take up to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave for each child under 18.
We are making changes to the leave and pay available to adoptive parents to bring it more closely into line with the leave and pay rights available to birth parents. Working couples who adopt will also be able to opt into the flexible parental system in the same way as birth parents if they meet the qualifying conditions. Intended parents of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement who meet the criteria to apply for a parental order will be eligible for statutory adoption leave and pay if they meet the qualifying criteria; and for flexible parental leave and pay if they meet the qualifying criteria.
Right to request flexible working
The measures set out in our response will enable many more employees to balance their work and personal commitments. We believe that flexible working will benefit employers as well; employers report that employees who work flexibly are more productive, less likely to take sick leave and more likely to stay with their employers. Additionally we have set out the intention to remove the existing statutory procedure for considering flexible working requests, which can be bureaucratic and costly, replacing it with a duty on employers to consider requests in a “reasonable manner”. We will set out in a code of practice guidance for employers on how to consider requests and what we mean by “reasonable”.
The Government intend to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, in order to implement the reforms by 2015.
Copies of the Modern Workplaces: Flexible Working Government response and the Modern Workplaces: Flexible Parental Leave Government response document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Foreign Affairs Council/Defence Affairs Council/General Affairs Council
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on the afternoon of 19 November. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) responsible for international security strategy will attend the European Defence Agency Steering Board and the Defence Foreign Affairs Council on the morning of 19 November.
There will be a joint lunch for Foreign and Defence Ministers to consider the issues outlined below. These meetings will be held in Brussels and will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
I will attend the General Affairs Council on 20 November, and the preceding dinner with President van Rompuy on 19 November. The meeting will be chaired by the Cypriot Presidency.
European Defence Agency (EDA) Steering Board
At the EDA Steering Board, Ministers will be expected to agree as usual the EDA’s budget and work programme for the forthcoming year and its indicative work plan for the next three years. Also on the agenda are the EDA’s approach to pooling and sharing and the defence contribution to the development of EU policies. The pooling and sharing report gives a progress update of ongoing activity such as the helicopter training programme and maritime surveillance networking, proposes new opportunities for pooling and sharing, and includes the code of conduct for pooling and sharing which Ministers are expected to adopt. Ministers will be updated on EDA work on the interaction between defence and wider EU policies such as industry and market, research and innovation and European space policy.
Defence Foreign Affairs Council
The agenda is expected to focus on EU operations and the defence taskforce.
EU Operations
The session on EU operations should open with an update on the current state of play in each of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operations. It is anticipated that discussion could then focus on the future of the EU training mission in Somalia (EUTM). The UK is supportive of a third mandate for EUTM Somalia, so we will look to push for extension of the mandate and to set out our thinking on the design of that mandate. The Mali operation is the subject of a specific discussion during the joint lunch, so we do not expect it to be discussed during this session.
Defence Taskforce
Ministers will receive an update from the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services on the EU defence task force’s efforts in supporting competitiveness, and on innovation of the European defence industry within the internal market. The defence taskforce is an internal EU Commission body co-chaired by the Commission’s DG Market and DG Enterprise, established in 2011 to identify measures to improve the internal defence market and improve the European defence industrial base. It is focused on the three main areas of the internal market, the Commission’s defence industry policy and defence research and development.
Defence and Foreign Ministers Lunch
Mali
Over an informal lunch, Ministers will discuss the draft crisis management concept being drawn up as part of the planning process for a CSDP mission to Mali. We do not expect conclusions to be issued from the lunch. This is an opportunity for the UK to express its support for accelerated planning towards a CSDP mission while ensuring that due rigour is applied to that planning process.
2013 European Council on Defence
Ministers will have an orientation debate on CSDP ahead of the 2013 European Council on defence. The December 2012 European Council will commission the relevant EU institutions to conduct preparatory work through the course of 2013. The discussion at the FAC will centre on this tasking. We welcome the European Council looking at this issue and will be pushing for a tasking framed around enhancing European military effectiveness and a more efficient European defence industry.
Foreign Affairs Council
Southern Neighbourhood
Ministers will review developments in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Egypt.
Ministers are likely to discuss recent events in Syria and their impact on EU efforts to support a peaceful transition. The UK is pushing for agreement to the full renewal of the EU’s restrictive measures on Syria which come up for renewal on 1 December, and will encourage other member states to increase their humanitarian aid.
On Lebanon, following the bomb attack in Beirut on 19 October, we expect conclusions which will condemn that attack and reiterate the EU’s strong commitment to Lebanon’s stability and independence. The conclusions will reiterate the EU’s support for the work of the Lebanese armed forces and urge all Lebanese parties to engage in the dialogue being led by President Sleiman.
Ministers may take stock of recent events in Libya, including the appointment of Prime Minister-elect Ali Zidan and progress in the approval of his Government. There will be an opportunity to discuss the provision and co-ordination of international assistance to the new Libyan authorities.
On Egypt, the Council will discuss follow-up to the EU-Egypt taskforce in Cairo which takes place on 13-14 November. The taskforce is a key moment in resetting the EU’s relationship with Egypt. We will continue to encourage greater emphasis on the principles of more-for-more in the follow-up to it, in line with EU ambition to use the ENP to incentivise reform. The taskforce will also discuss work, including in the UK, to improve repatriation of assets stolen from transition countries.
Yemen
It is almost one year since the transition process in Yemen began with the signing of the Gulf Co-operation Council Initiative on 23 November 2011. The transition remains broadly on track, with President Hadi successfully appointed after an interim election in February, and the formation of a national unity Government. The proposed conclusions would show our support for these efforts but also encourage the Yemenis to continue in this vein through the successful preparation and launch of an inclusive national dialogue, and preparations for full national elections in 2014.
Middle East Peace Process
The middle east peace process discussions will focus on the prospect of a Palestinian application to the UN General Assembly to upgrade their status to that of a non-member observer state. The UK will emphasise the need for EU countries to vote in a manner which advances our shared goal of realising the two state solution. We will make clear that we are encouraging the new US Administration to act quickly to put its full weight behind ensuring the Israelis and Palestinians return to substantive negotiations resulting in the resolution of the conflict.
Ukraine
There will be an in-depth discussion of Ukraine following the parliamentary elections on 28 October. The discussion will consider how to take forward the EU-Ukraine relationship in the light of the elections and other developments. We do not expect there to be conclusions in November.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Ministers are expected to agree conclusions which will highlight our concerns about the insecurity in eastern DRC; condemn the actions of M23 and other armed groups; call for the cessation of all outside support for M23; and underline the importance of the Government of the DRC showing leadership in resolving the problems. Ministers will also have the opportunity to consider what steps should be taken next to help to resolve the situation.
Cuba
Ministers will discuss the current situation in Cuba and the future of EU-Cuba relations. EU-Cuba relations are currently governed by the 1996 common position, which can be found at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX: 31996E0697:EN:NOT.
EU-US
Ministers will have the opportunity to discuss the EU’s priorities with the US following the US presidential elections on 6 November and the re-election of President Obama. We expect the discussion to cover a spectrum of leading international issues, including the global economy. We will stress the importance of an EU-US trade deal.
General Affairs Council
The key item of discussion will be the preparation for the November European Council on the multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The General Affairs Council (GAC) has led on the preparation of the MFF, which has been discussed at every GAC over the past year. Key issues such as the overall size of the MFF 2014-20 and the composition of spend in the different headings will be taken forward to the November European Council.
In addition to the MFF we expect this GAC to discuss the Commission’s work programme for 2013, follow up on the agreements reached at the October European Council and the agenda for the December European Council.
Multi-annual Financial Framework
Ministers will focus initially on issues around cohesion policy, on which the presidency hopes to secure a partial general approach on two remaining negotiating blocks: financial management, and the common strategic framework. Financial management deals with the processes for examination and acceptance of accounts and for financial corrections. The common strategic framework is an annex to the common provisions regulation which provides a strategic orientation at EU level for the funds.
The main item will be preparation for the special November European Council on 22 and 23 November. This will be discussed at a dinner with President van Rompuy on 19 November and again during the Tuesday 20 November session.
The Cypriot Presidency has produced various iterations of the “negotiating box” which now has an upper ceiling of numbers for the MFF. The presidency has made it clear that they expect further downward revisions and I will be arguing that the upper ceiling is far too high.
I expect a further version of the negotiating box to be issued before the GAC. This will be available at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/special-reports/mff/negotiating-box.
I will be emphasising the strength of feeling on budget size in the UK as demonstrated by the recent vote in the House of Commons.
I will also emphasise again that we will not agree to any changes to own resources, including the UK abatement.
Follow-up to the October European Council and agenda for December European Council
At the October European Council the Commission was urged to make progress on implementation of the growth compact and to speed up delivery on growth enhancing measures such as concluding trade agreements. The Commission have indicated that they will undertake to put proposals on a range of issues on the table before the end of the year. I will urge the Commission to press forward on the issues we consider priorities, including the annual growth survey and the internal energy market, but also to maintain momentum in other areas such as the trade agenda, where the need for progress was highlighted in particular in the October European Council. I will emphasise the need for progress on trade deals with Singapore, Japan, Canada and also the United States, which the Prime Minister discussed with President Obama when they spoke after his re-election.
Commonwealth Scholarship Commission
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
My Department will shortly commence the triennial review of its oversight arrangements for the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom (CSC).
The Government made a commitment regularly to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state.
The CSC, which administers the Government’s contribution to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, has been selected by DFID as one of the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) for which the review will commence during the second year of the triennial programme (2012-13).
The review will be conducted in line with relevant Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.
The first stage will:
Identify and examine the key functions of the CSC and assess how these functions contribute to the core business of DFID;
Assess the requirement for these to continue.
If they are to continue, there will be an assessment of how the key functions might best be delivered. If one of these options is continuing delivery through the CSC, there will be an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; and the need for independence from Ministers.
If the outcome of stage one is that delivery should continue through the CSC, the second stage of the review will 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 outcome will be announced in Parliament within six months of the review commencing.
Patrick Finucane Review
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I would like to announce that the report of the Patrick Finucane review, chaired by Sir Desmond de Silva QC, will be published during the week of Monday 10 December.
In my written statement to the House on 31 October, I set out the steps that would need to be taken before publication of the Patrick Finucane report. These included a checking process which would enable me to meet the obligations placed on me by article 2 of the European convention on human rights and to safeguard national security. I can confirm that this checking process has now been completed and I have received advice from the checking team which confirms that there is nothing in the report which, if published, could breach article 2 of the European convention on human rights by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk, or put national security at risk. I am therefore satisfied that the report can be published in full and I have advised Sir Desmond de Silva of this.
The report has not been shown to me or to any other Member of the Government, or to any officials except the members of the team which carried out the checking process. I have not been briefed on the contents of the report, nor have any officials other than those in the checking team.
As with the publication of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, Billy Wright inquiry and Rosemary Nelson inquiry reports, I intend to give advance sight to those who the review has advised are interested parties, to their legal representatives, and to some Members of both Houses.
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has recently run a competition to procure a front office counter service provider for its face-to-face motoring services from next April.
I can today announce that the DVLA will award Post Office Ltd a contract to build on the existing counter operation to provide a wider range of services and better accessibility for motorists. The contract will run for seven years with an option to extend for up to another three years. This contract will allow the Post Office to fully develop better services with the requirements of customers at the heart. Under the contract, Post Office Ltd will offer DVLA services at over 4,700 outlets for road tax and vehicle transactions, 750 of which will also cater for driver licensing.
This new contract provides value for money for the taxpayer resulting in savings of between £13 million and £15 million a year. The contract also gives scope for the Post Office to provide front office counter services for other Government Departments, to increase efficiencies across Government and provide better value for the taxpayer.
House of Lords
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Earl Ferrers
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death last night of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincerest condolences to the noble Earl’s family and friends.
Burma: Ethnic Nationalities
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments in Burma with regard to the ethnic nationalities, in particular the Rohingya, Kachin and Shan peoples.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, despite the continuing process of political reform taking place in Burma, we are concerned by the reports of serious abuses being committed by government forces and armed ethnic groups against civilians, both in Kachin and across the border in Shan. Inter-communal violence in Rakhine state between the Rohingya and the Rakhine communities has again highlighted our ongoing concerns about the plight of the Rohingya, who are denied citizenship and civil and social rights.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her sympathetic reply. Can she confirm the scale of the suffering caused by the Burmese Government’s policies of violence and oppression to which she has referred? In recent months, many hundreds have been killed, and an estimated 100,000 Kachin, 30,000 Shan and 100,000 Rohingya people have been displaced from their homes to live in appalling conditions in camps or in exile. When I was in Shan state earlier this year one of the Shan leaders said:
“When the lights went on in Rangoon all the world flooded there—and no one stopped to see us in the darkness”.
Will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that, during the forthcoming ministerial visit, the Minister will not only celebrate the lights of relative freedom in Rangoon but also engage with the ethnic peoples trapped in the darkness which still covers much of Burma today?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very important issue. She will accept that huge progress has been made in Burma but that it is important that that progress is felt by all communities in Burma. It is therefore right that the Government raise these concerns at every opportunity. The Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister raised them earlier this year when they visited Burma. They also specifically met with members of the Rohingya community. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised our specific concerns about the Rohingya community with President Thein Sein. My honourable friend the Minister of State hopes to visit Rakhine state when he visits Burma in December.
Lord Elton
My Lord, we are accustomed to being encouraged to welcome the new dawn of democracy in Burma but can my noble friend say to what extent the elected members of the Burmese Parliament really represent their electors and to what extent they have any control or influence on the actions and policies of the Burmese Government?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, we welcome and make much of the progress that has been made in Burma, especially in relation to the emerging of democracy. However, it is right that we regularly raise our concerns about matters where we feel that progress is not being appropriately made. Indeed, on her historic visit to the United Kingdom, these matters were raised with Aung San Suu Kyi.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, the UN has described the Rohingya people as among the most persecuted minorities in the world. In view of that reality, why have the UK Government been silent and inactive about the callous treatment by Bangladesh of the desperate Rohingya arriving on their shores? Will HMG now press the Bangladeshi Government to offer at least temporary refuge and access to humanitarian aid instead of sending thousands of Rohingya back to sea and to appalling danger?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, the Government have been neither silent nor inactive on this matter. In fact, I personally raised it with the Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, only a few weeks ago. We continue to press this matter. The former Secretary of State for the Department for International Development raised it earlier this year in a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. We have specifically raised the issue of being allowed to deliver aid to the refugee camps where the Rohingya community live.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what resources from the stabilisation unit and the Conflict Pool are being used to provide humanitarian assistance to the three countries —Thailand, Burma and, indeed, Bangladesh—to alleviate the suffering of these people and to plan in the longer term for their rehabilitation and settlement within the three countries?
Baroness Warsi
The funds currently being provided are not from the Conflict Pool but from humanitarian assistance provided through DfID. We remain the largest bilateral donor to Burma having committed £187 million which has been allocated over a period of four years until 2015. Our aid predominantly focuses on healthcare, responsible and good governance, and improving livelihoods.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I understand that my noble friend the Minister has some sympathy with Bangladesh and its management of the vast numbers of refugees entering that country and no doubt she will continue to pressure Bangladesh for a proper solution and an international response to the refugee crisis. Does she accept that ethnic cleansing is in process? Will she ensure that she and the Government use the special relationship which we seem to have with the United States of America to brief her counterparts regarding the upcoming visit of President Obama to that country and on how the Rohingya people are desperately concerned about the indication that that will make to their plight?
Baroness Warsi
I accept that this is a desperate situation for a desperate community which has suffered now for many years. We raise this matter in many of our bilateral discussions both with the European Union and the US and specifically in discussions with Turkey, which has been playing a huge role in humanitarian assistance. The noble Baroness is right that we must continue to press. While we welcome the progress in Burma, I can absolutely assure the House that we continuously raise this matter.
Lord Avebury
When my noble friend met Dipu Moni, did she tell her frankly that closing the borders against the Rohingya refugees is contrary to customary international law? If so, what reply did she receive from the Foreign Minister?
Baroness Warsi
I had a number of discussions with the Foreign Minister both at the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week in New York and thereafter when she was travelling through London. I specifically raised the concern about the Rohingya community in this country, both in the wider community and among the Bangladeshi diaspora community which is crucial to the Bangladeshi Government. I left her with no illusion about the level of our concern.
Baroness Nye
My Lords, have the Government pressed the Burmese Government to allow the High Commission for Human Rights to set up an office in Burma? It would not only provide technical assistance to the Government and civil society groups during this transitional period but also be able to monitor not only the awful situation of the Rohingya but the dreadful rapes of ethnic Kachin and Shan women by the Burmese army.
Baroness Warsi
I am not sure what representations we have made so I shall write to the noble Baroness with a specific response. However, I can assure her that our ambassador, Mr Andrew Heyn, has been to Rakhine state twice over the past four weeks, including a visit to Kyaukpyu, the area which Human Rights Watch has been monitoring through satellite imaging.
Justice: Indeterminate Sentences
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take following the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on 18 September in the case of James v UK that the detention of prisoners serving an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection beyond their tariff without access to parole is a breach of their rights under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are still considering whether to appeal against this decision. The Government have three months from the date of the judgment to submit an application to the Grand Chamber which will effectively be appealing the decision.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the noble Lord will know the figures because he was kind enough to give them to me last night. There are currently 6,000 people serving IPP sentences, 3,500 of whom have already passed their tariff date and are currently waiting to appear before the Parole Board. Of those 3,500, 2,000 have been waiting for more than two years and 350 have been waiting for more than four years. The court has held in no uncertain terms that their detention in these circumstances is arbitrary and therefore unlawful. Does the noble Lord recognise the scale of this continuing disaster? Does he accept that the Government must do something now to get these wretched people out of prison?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government have done something. IPPs were abolished by the LASPO Act, but unwinding the system has to be done very carefully. We are not talking about people who are innocent, but people who have been sentenced for long periods for serious crimes. The IPP system was introduced by the previous Government with, I think, a genuine intent to deal with this problem. We are bringing in a more flexible approach and we have both the Parole Board and NOMS working closely on it. However, it is not simply a matter of throwing open the gates of the prison because in some cases we are dealing with very dangerous people, so we must have public protection in mind when deciding how to deal with them.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there could well be implications arising from the James case for the 3,500 prisoners who have passed their tariff that could lead to them claiming compensation against the Government either under tort or under Section 8 of the 1998 Act? In those circumstances, do the Government accept that they may have to pay compensation?
Lord McNally
One of the reasons why we are studying the judgment is to make sure that we get this right. There are three very early cases which go back to before the reforms brought in by the previous Administration in 2008 in order to bring in more flexibility. It is interesting to note that the court did not find that IPPs themselves were in breach of the Human Rights Act. The weakness that quickly became apparent was the Catch 22 whereby the prisoners were supposed to carry out certain restorative and rehabilitative programmes that were not available. After 2008, the Government brought in some reforms and we have had further discussions with the Parole Board and NOMS to try to speed them up. But I emphasise again that we are not dealing with innocent people. These are people who have been before a court and found guilty of the crimes which have brought forward this programme. We are trying to manage them out of the system as quickly as possible, but with due care for public safety.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, one of the main grounds for the judgment against the United Kingdom was that there are, as my noble friend has said, insufficient facilities for courses to enable prisoners serving IPP sentences to qualify for release. Can the Minister say what extra rehabilitation facilities are now to be put in place to ensure that such prisoners can be released safely and quickly into the community?
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the things that we have been discussing with both NOMS and the Parole Board is moving away from a system of box-ticking specific narrow training programmes to a more flexible judgment about whether a particular prisoner is suitable for release. Giving both NOMS and the Parole Board greater flexibility in treating, assessing and managing these prisoners will enable the Parole Board to make a balanced judgment, at the right time, about whether these prisoners should be released.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, does the Minister agree that when these sentences were first brought in, nobody expected that they would apply to more than a very small number of exceptional cases? Since then, they have been used on a wide scale. Does that not cast doubt on the propriety of keeping these people in jail beyond the sentences they would otherwise have had?
Lord McNally
Whether there was a misjudgment or not when IPPs were brought in, the fact is that we have reached the figure that the noble and learned Lord quoted of 6,000, which is far more than was anticipated by the initiators of the Bill. However, we now have to go through a proper process of assessing whether these prisoners, who have been sentenced for serious crimes, are fit for release, always keeping in mind public safety as well as the progress they have made. We have taken on board the fact that, as it was, the system was too rigid and too tick-box and we have given it greater flexibility. However, we have to manage release into the community; we cannot just open the prison doors.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the decision in the James case was another reversal by the European court of decisions about our domestic legislation reached by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Does the Minister agree that, despite the Brighton declaration, there seems to be very little sign of the European court affording us the margin of appreciation that it is supposed to do? In the light of this case, and another recent case that would have attracted the House’s attention, is it not time to consider cutting the links with Strasbourg?
Lord McNally
I would very much regret that. We get enormous benefits from being part of a wider regime of human rights. However, I am equally proud of the reforms that were brought through by the Brighton declaration. I would also say that we have not exhausted the Strasbourg system with this case and are considering whether to appeal. As I reminded the noble and learned Lord, the actual judgment was a very narrow one that did not disown IPPs or say that they breached the Human Rights Act.
Schools: Parenthood Education
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Northbourne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that secondary school children learn about responsibilities of parenthood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, secondary school pupils can learn about the responsibilities of parenthood in non-statutory personal, social, health and economic education. Schools have the flexibility to include the teaching of parenting skills as part of PSHE education, based on local circumstances and the needs of their pupils. A review of PSHE education is looking at how to support schools to improve the quality of PSHE teaching.
Lord Northbourne
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that Ofsted’s recent reports show that in many, if not most, secondary schools, PSHE is taught, if at all, by teachers with little interest and no training in the subject? Will the Government take action to ensure that the nation’s secondary schools do more to warn young people about the significant and often onerous responsibilities attached to becoming a teenage parent?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, that same Ofsted subject survey in 2010 showed that about three-quarters of PSHE provided by schools was good or outstanding.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I take the noble Lord’s underlying point and the importance of that. Those are the issues that the review is looking into, in terms of the content of what is taught, the quality of the teaching and the support that goes to teachers.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the objective in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is even more likely to be fulfilled if school governing bodies included at least some members who are parents of pupils in the school?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I think that the contribution that parents make to school governing bodies is varied. The connection between parents and schools is an important one, but that goes beyond the direct parental role and into the whole provision of education.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, the latest figures for teenage pregnancy rates—that is, for the year 2010—were the lowest for 40 years. That was driven by the Labour Government’s strategy centrally, delivered locally by teenage pregnancy co-ordinators. However, the coalition Government have disbanded the very small teenage pregnancy unit in the Minister’s department, which led on that. A third of the teenage pregnancy co-ordinators have been cut, many in high-risk areas. Do the Government have any concerns about losing the considerable and very difficult progress made in turning this intractable and historic situation around? What action are they taking to ensure that the downward trend in teenage conceptions continues, including, but not exclusively, the provision of sex and relationship education in schools?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The noble Baroness is right that the trend has been falling. As she says, the figure is at the lowest level since 1969. That is very welcome and I recognise that it is obviously in part down to the work of the previous Government. It is obviously important that the work delivered through PSHE and sex and relationship education is carried forward. That is something we are reviewing as part of that broader review to which I have already referred. Also, on the delivery of these services, and the progress that has been made on bringing down teenage pregnancy rates by local authorities, the Government think that the local authority is the lead on this. There is a quite a variation between different local authorities across the country but I am certainly in agreement with the noble Baroness that we need to make sure that that work continues.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, will my noble friend look at the work being done by David Lammy MP with teenage fathers from the Afro-Caribbean community, with a view to learning whatever lessons are appropriate from that work? Is this not an area where we ought to be able to work cross-party?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree. I would be keen to know more about the work that Mr Lammy is taking forward.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, will the Government encourage the teaching of financial literacy as an important part of parenting, and in particular stress that while child benefit is of immense value to those with children, it would be ludicrous to suppose that having children to obtain that benefit made any financial let alone moral sense?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree very much with the right reverend Prelate on his second point. On his first point, financial education is important. As he will know, it is delivered as one of the strands of PSHE education. Also, as part of trying to improve financial literacy, the Government could do work on things such as basic maths. There is a correlation: in well run schools, thriving pupils who have ambition and aspiration are less likely to get into the kind of difficulty that we have been talking about. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that many of our schoolchildren will not experience stable and enduring relationships at home and that they may see many adults pass through their lives? If he does, is it not therefore important to ensure that schools can model for children what an enduring and reliable relationship is? Teachers can be equipped to do that through good training in child development, consultation such as that offered by the charity Place2Be and others, and the importance given to vertical tutor groups in secondary schools. These all support children’s ability to know about enduring and reliable relationships and be better parents themselves. I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with the noble Earl about the importance of trying to help children to understand the importance of stability and stable relationships. I take his point that unfortunately too many children suffer from transient relationships at home. I know that many schools do extraordinarily good work to give children more order, discipline, shape and structure, which helps to replicate some of those things that, sadly, they do not get from their home life.
Nigeria: Violence
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Northern Nigeria in the light of ongoing incidents of violence in Kaduna and Maiduguri.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, we have strongly condemned the recent violence in northern Nigeria, including that perpetuated by the extremists known as Boko Haram, which has afflicted all communities in Nigeria. We are also deeply concerned about the allegations of human rights abuses being perpetuated by members of the Nigerian security services. The British Government are working with the Nigerian Government and international partners to tackle the situation.
Baroness Berridge
I thank my noble friend for such a comprehensive answer. The deaths in northern Nigeria are not just a tragedy for Nigeria but could be a cause of regional instability. Will my noble friend please outline when these issues were last raised directly with President Goodluck Jonathan, and, if she has not done so already, will she host a round-table meeting to talk about our Government’s work on this issue with representatives of the diaspora within the UK, for whom this is a key concern? It is often the relatives of British citizens who are dying in northern Nigeria.
Baroness Warsi
I can tell my noble friend that the Prime Minister raised these matters when he met President Jonathan in February this year. The UK has a strong relationship with Nigeria on counterterrorism policy, focusing especially on extremism. Just over a week ago, our high commissioner in Abuja met senior officials at the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and discussed the specific violence that we saw recently in northern Nigeria, including the most recent attack in Kaduna city. Senior officials met on 25 October to discuss the ongoing conflict.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, religious freedom is a human right and one that, I fear, is abused in relation to Christians the world over. We hear a great deal about Islamophobia; we hear much less about Christianophobia. The noble Baroness made an extremely successful visit recently to Geneva to address the UN Human Rights Council. Will she raise the issue of the persecution of Christians the world over at that council?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord raises an important issue. He will be aware that human rights is part of my portfolio and freedom of religion is a big part of that. It is something that I intend to put a huge amount of focus on, especially discrimination towards religious communities around the world. Specifically in relation to Nigeria, it is important to remember that Boko Haram comes out of a group known as JAS. That group, including Boko Haram, has targeted Muslims as well as Christians.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank noble Lords. I was in Kaduna less than a month ago. Will the Minister confirm what actions are being taken to support religious leaders, such as Bishop Fearon in Kaduna and the Sultan of Sokoto, and leaders from both communities in their work? Do they have access to funds provided through DfID in the major programme of conflict management and mitigation that is going on at the moment?
Baroness Warsi
I cannot answer the specific point in relation to the individuals that the right reverend Prelate refers to, but I can say that we are funding a huge amount of work through DfID on conflict resolution, and specifically trying to create the right forums for interfaith discussions, including “Enduring Peace in Jos: Arresting the Cycle of Violent Conflict”. We are also involved in a programme to train youth peace ambassadors from both the Christian and Muslim communities. We are providing £800,000 over three years for work towards creating spaces where the different communities can come together to discuss some of these matters. We have also established the Nigeria stability and reconciliation programme, which specifically aims to address the grievances that can lead to extremism and terrorism.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, north-south relations in Nigeria are often very complex and can seldom be accurately described in simplistic terms as merely religious or tribal divisions—as the Minister has said, problems arise on both sides. Boko Haram’s objective is plainly contrary to any kind of modern view of democracy, freedom of belief or social inclusion—or indeed to the objectives of the Harare principles. What role might the Commonwealth have in assisting Nigeria to develop as a modern and inclusive country? Should we not encourage a Commonwealth Secretariat assessment, since that will be seen to be far less colonial and far more inclusive in global terms?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is right that the conflict in Nigeria, which spans many decades, has many facets to it, including a religious facet and many ethnic tensions. His is an interesting idea in relation to the Commonwealth’s role. He will be aware that we already have discussions with both the African Union and the European Union in relation to joint work, but it is a matter that I will take back.
Lord Chidgey
Does my noble friend agree with the Bishop of Sokoto, Matthew Hassan Kukah, that the crisis in the north should not be seen as Christian against Muslim or north against south, but more as one of justice and fairness, which calls for a modern, quality education to be provided for girls as well as boys in the north and, most of all, sweeping reform to a demoralised and corrupt police force where absenteeism is now running at more than 50%?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord raises an important issue and I would add to that the voice of the Sultan of Sokoto, a traditional leader among Nigerian Muslims. He said that this group, Boko Haram, was “an embarrassment to Islam”. It is heartening to hear people such as Dr Aliyu, the Niger state governor and the chair of the Northern Governors’ Forum—again, a Muslim—basically condemning Boko Haram and saying that it did not represent Islam. Nearer here, in the United Kingdom, the Muslim Council of Britain has also come out and condemned it.
Civil Aviation Bill
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Commissioning Board: Mandate
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement given in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the subject of the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement regarding the publication of the Government’s first mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. The NHS is this country’s most precious creation. We are all immensely proud of the NHS and the people who make it what it is: a service that last year delivered half a million more outpatient appointments, nearly 1 million more A&E attendances and 1.5 million more diagnostic tests than the year that this Government came into office, and is doing so while meeting waiting time targets, reducing hospital-acquired infections and virtually eliminating mixed-sex wards. The essence of the NHS is its values: universal and comprehensive healthcare that is free and based on need and not ability to pay.
Today, I am proud to publish the first ever mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. From now on, Ministers will set the priorities for the NHS but, for the first time, local doctors and clinical staff will have the operational freedom to implement those priorities using their own judgment as to the best way to improve health outcomes for the people they look after. That independence comes with a responsibility to work with colleagues in local authorities and beyond, and to engage with local communities to create a genuinely integrated system across health and social care that is built around the needs of individual people.
This mandate makes clear my responsibility as Secretary of State for Health to uphold and defend the enduring values that make the NHS part of what it is to be British. It also sets out my priorities for the NHS Commissioning Board over the next two years and beyond, linked closely to the NHS outcomes framework, the latest version of which I am also publishing today.
The priorities set out in the mandate closely reflect the four key priorities that I have identified to Parliament as my own as Health Secretary. Let me take each in turn. My first priority is to reduce avoidable mortality rates for the major killer diseases where, despite increases in life expectancy, our survival rates are still below the European average in too many areas. If our mortality rates were level with the best in Europe, we could save as many as 20,000 lives every year; 20,000 personal tragedies that could be avoided but are not.
It cannot be right that we are below average for cancer survival rates; that for respiratory diseases we are the worst in the EU 15; and that our performance on liver disease is getting worse, not better. So today I call on the NHS Commissioning Board, working with Public Health England, local government, local commissioning groups and others to begin a concerted effort to bring down avoidable mortality rates in this country.
The mandate asks the NHS Commissioning Board to make measurable progress to improve early diagnosis, giving more people quicker access to the right drugs and treatment when they need it; to reduce the wide and unacceptable variation between different parts of the country, both in terms of inequality of health outcomes and variability of performance by NHS trusts; and to support a renewed focus on prevention—working with local authority partners to help people to quit smoking, drink less, eat better and exercise more.
My second priority is to build a health and care system where the quality of a person’s care is valued as highly as the quality of their treatment. When we place ourselves in the hands of others, we should be confident that we will be treated well, with our dignity respected and that this will be the case regardless of our age or mental state, or whether we are in a hospital, a care home or our own home.
For most people, most of the time, this is already the case. But too often it is not. The appalling revelations from places like Mid Staffordshire and Winterbourne View bring home the desperate need for change. So we must go beyond the enforcement of minimum standards. We must raise our game so that the NHS is recognised globally for its commitment to the highest standards of care for all, just as it is recognised for the highest standards of treatment for all.
The mandate asks the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that local GP-led commissioning groups work with local authorities and others so that vulnerable people, particularly those with dementia, learning disabilities and autism, receive safe, appropriate, high quality care. The mandate also asks the board to improve standards of care during pregnancy and in the early years of children’s lives. This will include offering women the greatest possible choice over how they give birth, giving every woman a named midwife, responsible for them both before and after their birth, and by reducing the incidence and impact of postnatal depression through early diagnosis and better intervention and support.
The mandate asks the board to measure and understand how people really feel about their care through the new “friends and family” test—asking patients whether they would recommend the care that they receive to their friends or family. This test will cover hospital and maternity services in 2013, with other parts of the NHS following soon after.
It also asks the board to drive up standards of care by championing a transparency revolution within the NHS. This will make us the first country in the world to publish comparative information on performance throughout the healthcare system, including between clinical commissioning groups, local councils, providers of care and consultant-led teams. Mental health, which has long been the poor relation, must have parity with physical health. This mandate asks the board to make clear progress in rectifying this, particularly by looking at waiting times and by rolling out the programme of improved access to psychological therapies.
My third priority is to dramatically improve care for the one-third of people in England who live with a long-term condition, such as asthma, diabetes or epilepsy. As a group, they account for more than half of GP appointments and nearly three-quarters of hospital admissions. This has a huge impact on the individuals concerned, an impact that can be compounded by the way that they are dealt with by the NHS. We need to do much better. So this mandate asks the NHS Commissioning Board to help those who rely heavily on the NHS by harnessing the power of the revolution in technology. Labour’s NHS IT projects failed, wasting billions, but we must not allow that failure to blind us to how technology can transform treatment and care throughout the system.
So today I am asking the board to make sure that by 2015 all patients in England will be able to access their GP records online. In at least parts of the country, those records will be integrated with other medical records across the health and social care system, so that a single record can follow a patient seamlessly from ambulance to hospital to GP clinic and to their own home.
By 2015 everyone will be able to book GP appointments and order repeat prescriptions online, as well as contact their GP by e-mail. Significant progress will also have been made towards ensuring that 3 million people with long-term conditions benefit from telehealth and telecare by 2017. With respect to people with long-term conditions, the mandate also asks the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that by 2015 more people have the knowledge and skills to control their own care and that carers have the information and advice they need about the support available to them, including respite care.
My final priority is care for older people, specifically for those with dementia. Already one in three people over the age of 65 live with dementia, but, shockingly, even though the right medicines can make a huge difference to people’s quality of life and those of their families, we diagnose fewer than half of those with the condition. I want the diagnosis, treatment and care for people with dementia to be world-leading, so the mandate asks the NHS Commissioning Board to make significant progress in improving dementia diagnosis rates and to ensure that the best treatment and care are available to everyone wherever they live. We also want to see progress in ensuring that hospitals and, indeed, all NHS organisations make significant progress in becoming dementia-aware and dementia-friendly environments.
The mandate also covers other important areas of NHS performance, including research, partnership working, the Armed Forces covenant, and better health services for those in prison, especially at the point when people are integrated back into the community.
The mandate also sets the NHS Commissioning Board’s annual revenue budget. For 2013-14, this is £95.6 billion, with a capital budget of £200 million. An important objective for the board is therefore to ensure good financial management, as well as unprecedented and sustainable improvements in value for money across the NHS.
We are the first country in the world to set out our ambitions for our health service in a short, concise document centred around patients. Its clarity and brevity will help to bring accountability, transparency and stability to the NHS. The previous Government sent endless instructions to SHAs and PCTs, constantly bombarding them with new targets, new directions and new priorities and drowning the NHS in red tape and bureaucracy. In stark contrast, this mandate is just 28 pages long. It signals the end of top-down political micro-management of the NHS, an approach that failed to get the best treatment for patients and the best value for taxpayers.
This mandate demands much closer integration between secondary and primary care and between the NHS and social care. It requires a new style of leadership from the NHS, with local doctors and nurses free to innovate in the way in which they commission care. I look to the board to develop their leadership skills so that they can discharge their duties in the best interests of their patients. The mandate will make it easier for Ministers to hold the health and care system to account, and it will make it easier for Parliament to hold Ministers to account for their stewardship of the system. This is a historic step for the NHS, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes this Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the briefing that he gave me earlier today. I also refer noble Lords to my interest in health, contained in the register.
This morning I had the great privilege of hosting a ministerial visit to Birmingham Heartlands Hospital by the Minister’s honourable friend, Mr Norman Lamb. He came to see the Birmingham and Solihull Rapid Assessment, Interface and Discharge service—RAID—which essentially is a partnership that has placed mental health professionals inside the emergency department of my local hospital to give people a holistic physical and mental health response. In that context, I very much welcome the emphasis in the mandate on mental health priority and the promise to implement the amendment that we tabled in your Lordships’ House in relation to parity of esteem between physical and mental health.
But—and there is a but—the problem at the moment in the National Health Service is that mental health has been first in line for reductions in expenditure. Is the Minister in a position to confirm that mental health spending was cut in real terms last year, and to say what the Government intend to do to reverse that? Will he also confirm, in relation to mental health, that he is determined to see that primary care plays its role and that we will see more mental health specialists working in teams with GPs, nurses and carers? Will personal health budgets be extended to enable patients with mental health issues to select the best combination of services and treatments for themselves? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that good mental health does not start in the hospital or treatment room but in our workplaces, schools and communities? For example, poor mental health in the workplace costs the UK an estimated £26 billion a year. Does the Minister accept that this requires a cross-government approach, and is he as disappointed as I am at the news of the apparent demise of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Health—due, it is said, to a lack of interest from other government departments?
The mandate contains a number of welcome references to helping to improve people’s health. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the Government are doing to reawaken interest across Whitehall. The whole architecture of the NHS that the Minister brought to your Lordships’ House in the Health and Social Care Act was about the Department of Health passing over day-to-day concerns about the NHS to the national Commissioning Board, giving itself time to work on wider public health issues—and, I have always assumed, to seek to influence the rest of Whitehall. Would he accept that the demise of this Cabinet sub-committee is a very disappointing signal?
I have three fundamental questions concerning the mandate, which relate to funding, the measurement of performance and the role of Ministers. As the Minister has intimated, this is a multiyear document, setting objectives for the period April 2013 to March 2015 but subject to revision at the end of each year—or, in other special circumstances, including a general election. We can only hope that we might be coming back to this mandate sooner than the Government perhaps would wish. I have noted that the mandate has been restructured around the outcomes framework, which is to be welcomed, and that some of the specific levels of ambition that were placed in the consultation on the mandate have now been replaced by what the Minister described as stretched levels of ambition. Has the mandate been costed out? I could not help but contrast the optimistic claims of Ministers with the everyday financial realities of life in the NHS. Is the mandate a realistic document about what the public can expect to happen or is it little more than a Christmas shopping list which is unlikely to be realised in full?
The noble Earl will have seen the RCN’s warning today of thousands of job losses among clinical staff. That appears to be the reality of life in the NHS. Emergency services are under pressure and a toxic mix of reorganisation and real-terms cuts risks plunging the NHS into a very difficult situation. There has been a great deal of publicity and concern about the decision of the BBC in relation to the retirement package, as it were, of the former director-general. However, the Government stand accused of wasting a full £1 billion on redundancy packages for health service managers as a result of the recent reforms. That money could have been spent on patient care.
I note that most of the time the Statement seeks to create a consensus but every so often it descends into political rhetoric, which I regret. I was pained to hear the noble Earl say that the previous Government sent endless instructions to the health service and constantly bombarded it with new targets. However, those targets, which focused on reducing waiting times and improving clinical performance, were absolutely pivotal to improving the performance of the National Health Service. We will, of course, always find ways to make further improvements, but there is no doubt whatever that between 1997 and 2010 the NHS was vastly improved.
The new architecture which the Government have set in place feels very bureaucratic to those working in the National Health Service. Instead of clear departmental direction, three major agencies have been created, which often row in different directions. Monitor, the economic regulator, has conflicting roles. It is unsure about how to incentivise integration but is stuck with the mantra of the market and enforced competition. The CQC lacks confidence and credibility and awaits the Francis verdict, although the appointment of the new chief executive, David Behan, is a very good step forward. The national Commissioning Board is all-powerful and talks the talk of devolution but I am afraid to report that it displays some centralist tendencies. Indeed, I have heard that “aggressive commissioning” is the buzzword around the national Commissioning Board. I certainly hope that it can do better than that. I do not think that the frail elderly, who comprise the patient group that makes the most demands on the health service, need aggressive commissioning. They need an integrationist approach whereby the architecture and the key national players—the department, Monitor, the CQC and the NCB—work together to get the conditions right for an integrationist approach.
I urge the national Commissioning Board to focus its attention on primary care, community care and adult social care. Does the noble Earl agree with that? We are seeing in the health service the development of seven-day working in acute hospitals. I welcome the mandate’s emphasis on mental health playing its full part, but it requires the same commitment from GPs, community services and adult social services. The contrast between what is happening in some parts of the NHS with the desperate struggle that local authorities are facing to keep council social care services for adults going could not be wider. Indeed, millions of people face higher care charges as councils are forced to put up the cost of meals on wheels and other services. The response from local government to the need for a seven-day service is extremely patchy and very worrying.
I would like also to refer to the comment made in the Statement about the performance of the NHS in relation to certain clinical services. If the Government are so concerned, why on earth are they proceeding with cuts to the cancer, heart and stroke networks? Surely that needs to be reconsidered.
Turning to the performance of the national Commissioning Board and how it is to be measured, the mandate contains a long list of improvement areas —as they are called—and says that it is the Government’s ambition,
“for England to become one of the most successful countries in Europe at preventing premature deaths, and our objective for the NHS Commissioning Board is to make measurable progress towards this outcome by 2016”.
What do the Government mean by “measurable progress”? Are there going to be some numbers or is this going to be a vague promise by the national Commissioning Board? What will happen if the national Commissioning Board does not meet those objectives and ambitions? Will there be any sanction placed on it?
The noble Earl repeated the mantra that the NHS is being liberated from day-to-day, top-down interference in its operational management. The mandate seems to have issued an uncosted wish list and is hoping to contract out responsibility to the national Commissioning Board, but it does not absolve Ministers of their accountability for giving Parliament as much information as possible and, ultimately, accepting their responsibility to Parliament for the performance of this great public service.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome he was able to give to aspects of the mandate, not least in the area of mental health where, as he will have noted, the original version of the mandate has been considerably strengthened in a number of places to emphasise the parity of mental health with physical health in a number of ways. I am glad he thinks that that is a positive step and I agree that it is a necessary one if we are to achieve the higher standards in the care of those with mental health problems which we all want to see.
The noble Lord also welcomed the focus on outcomes and the fact that the mandate has been restructured around the five domains of the outcomes framework. We thought it was logical and sensible to hold the board to account for objectives which related directly to indicators within the outcomes framework. That has been warmly welcomed by the board itself.
The noble Lord asked a number of specific questions. First, on personal budgets in mental health, I can tell him that, subject to the results of the current trials in personal health budgets which we expect to announce very soon, we expect that mental health will be one of the areas where patients will be able to exercise direct control over the services they receive. As the noble Lord well knows, patient empowerment in the area of mental health is, in itself, therapeutic. If we can encourage that, we should.
The noble Lord also mentioned mental health in the workplace and I completely agree with what he said about that. I recently mentioned, in your Lordships’ House, the network which Dame Carol Black and I chair in the department looking at health in the workplace and the pledges that have been devised and which businesses can sign up to. One of those pledges indeed relates to mental health. We hope that we can recruit willing enthusiasts from among the business community to sign up to as many of those pledges as they can.
The noble Lord referred to public health, and I agree with him that it is not a matter simply for the department; all government departments need to engage in it. I should say to him that the creation of Public Health England will provide an immediate opportunity for that body to work with other government departments, but also much more widely to ensure that we genuinely have a joined-up approach to public health objectives. He will know that the public health outcomes framework, which has been drawn up to align itself as far as possible with the NHS outcomes framework, will be a powerful driver for improvement across the field of public health.
The noble Lord characterised the mandate as an uncosted wish list. I can tell him that it has been costed, and the NHS Commissioning Board itself was fully consulted before the mandate was drawn up, because it would clearly not be in anyone’s interests to task the board with delivering the unachievable. The board is aware that it will receive real-terms increases in the budget for the NHS—increases the NHS has received during every year of this Parliament. He referred to cuts. I want to emphasise to him that while we are aware that there are significant constraints at a local level, particularly at provider level, the overall budget to the NHS is not being cut; it is increasing, year by year.
The redundancy payments that unfortunately have been necessary of course represent ongoing annual savings from now on. It is always painful to make people redundant, but we deemed that it was absolutely necessary if we were to retain a sustainable health service. Every pound that we save will go straight back into front-line care.
The noble Lord mentioned the performance of the previous Government, and I am the first to pay tribute to the improvement in the health service that took place under that Administration—not least in waiting times. It is why we have explicitly said in the mandate that waiting times continue to matter. They matter to patients, they are clinically a valid measure of patient experience, and we have no intention of abandoning that metric.
The noble Lord also spoke about enforced competition. I should correct him on that because, as he will know from our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, we believe that competition can sometimes be a tool for commissioners. We do not believe that it should be shoved down anybody’s throat. Competition, as Sir David Nicholson pointed out the other day, should be regarded as a rifle shot, rather than a carpet-bombing exercise. It should be used only where it is in the interests of patients, which is why the first duty of Monitor, the economic regulator of the health service, is to serve the interests of patients.
The noble Lord referred to partnership working, and I was absolutely in agreement with him that there needs to be partnership, not only at a local level between GPs, social care, secondary care providers, but at the level of the arm’s-length bodies. Chapter 7.3 of the mandate covers the latter aspect comprehensively. However, in Chapter 2, we also place great stress on integration of services, which was the subject of a number of debates in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Bill. Primary care is covered in Chapter 9.2, which is one of the main areas that the board will be commissioning.
The noble Lord asked me about networks, which we debated a few days ago. They can take various forms. The strategic clinical networks, about which he asked me in his Oral Question the other day, embrace, as he knows, four major clinical areas where we believe that considerable change is required if we are to see services improved to the extent that they should be. However, that does not preclude other networks forming at a local level—for example, at provider level—to ensure that services are joined up. I am sure that we shall encourage those networks, wherever they are appropriate, but we are not mandating them.
The noble Lord asked me about measurable progress. Today, we are publishing an updated version of the NHS outcomes framework, which includes an appendix that sets out the detailed definitions for the majority of indicators. We will have robust metrics which we shall be able to use to measure health outcomes. Over the past few months, the Health and Social Care Information Centre has been publishing many of the data as they have become available. Publishing data for the indicators will, in itself, show whether outcomes are improving. In order to interpret progress, we will work with the NHS Commissioning Board and experts to develop a methodology for measuring progress. There is time enough to do that and I will happily keep the noble Lord informed as that work rolls forward.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that contributions and questions should be brief so that as many noble Lords as possible can participate. I also remind noble Lords that contributions will come from around the House so Members other than those in the Labour Party need to speak now. Maybe we could hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I shall speak briefly, not least because before I knew about this Statement, I made an appointment to meet some major professional visitors at four o’clock this afternoon. I make my apologies to the noble Earl.
The general terms of this mandate are to be greatly welcomed. Its structure is attractive and its relationship to the future of the outcomes framework is very welcome indeed. I welcome the concentration on long-term conditions and their management, although it is important to mention that, whereas diabetes, hypertension and mental health are highlighted in the document, there are many other long-term conditions that need special attention, many of them neurological, such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, neuro-muscular diseases, and so on. I also welcome the emphasis on innovation.
My one major question relates to the very paragraph to which the noble Lord referred. Paragraph 9.2 states:
“The NHS Commissioning Board will be directly commissioning NHS services provided by GPs, dentists, community pharmacists and community opticians; specialised care; health services for people in custody; and military health”.
There are the two words, “specialised care”. We have had discussions about this before and my understanding is that the NHS Commissioning Board will commission directly highly specialised services but more general specialised services will be commissioned by the clinical commissioning groups. Indeed, paragraph 9.3 states:
“The Department will hold the Board to account for the quality of its direct commissioning, and how well it is working with clinical commissioners … An objective is to ensure that, whether NHS care is commissioned nationally by the Board or locally by clinical commissioning groups, the results—the quality and value of the services—should be measured”.
Therefore, is there not an incompatibility between these two paragraphs, one saying that all care will be commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board, and the next paragraph modifying and qualifying that? I think that is a matter for clarification as the mandate goes forward.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome to the overall structure of the mandate and its content. I do not believe that there is an inconsistency between those two paragraphs. We have had a number of debates about specialised healthcare. I can confirm to him what I have said in the past: it will be the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board to commission services in relation to highly specialised conditions and, on top of that, those specialised conditions that are currently commissioned by the regional specialised commissioning groups. It is services for not only very rare conditions but slightly less rare conditions that the board will commission. That is a positive step that has been welcomed by the specialised healthcare community. We will spell out in regulations exactly what conditions are specialised conditions.
Paragraph 9.3 states that the way in which the board is held to account should be directly analogous to the way in which other commissioners in the health service are held to account. In other words, the board cannot expect not to be held to account by the department in a similar fashion. I hope that with that clarification, the noble Lord will be reassured.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I note that the mandate no longer sets quantifiable levels of ambition. The Minister explained how progress might be measured. There will be overarching indicators and improvement areas that will all match or mirror the five parts of the outcomes framework. Will my noble friend the Minister explain to the House how frequently progress is likely to be reported, and how it will be monitored by parliamentarians?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend. The board will have to publish its progress against the objectives in the mandate. The Government will publish an annual assessment of its progress. We have set an objective for the board to demonstrate progress against all the indicators in the NHS outcomes framework. We will use a range of evidence to assess the board’s performance, including asking CCGs and other stakeholders for their feedback. This will be important, because it will provide the board and everybody else with a much more rounded view of how the health service is doing. The information will be publicly available, so everyone will be able to judge for themselves whether the NHS has achieved these stretching goals. In year, Ministers will hold the board to account. In particular, the Secretary of State will hold formal accountability meetings with the chair of the board every two months. Minutes of those meetings will be published. The meetings will be an opportunity to review performance and discuss issues as they arise, and as is right and proper.
Lord Warner
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this mandate, especially the points that the Minister made about mental health. Perhaps I may gently remind him that he and his Government will be able to send this patient information whizzing round the system and the country only as a result of the much maligned national spine that the previous Government put in place, along with a central contract. It is worth bearing in mind a little history.
The Minister said that this had been a masterly and costed exercise and that the NHS Commissioning Board had said that it could deliver the mandate within the finances available. Will he confirm that this means that the NHS Commissioning Board’s chief executive has accepted that he will have to deliver, through his new role, £20 billion in savings over four years—the so-called Nicholson challenge? We would like to know whether the Nicholson challenge includes that money.
Finally, I will follow up the point about specialist and specialised services made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The Minister may recall that in July the new president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges make the powerful point that we have far too many 24/7 acute centres. Will it be part of the Commissioning Board’s responsibility, with the money it uses to directly commission specialist and specialised services, to start to make progress on Professor Terence Stephenson’s suggestions that we need fewer specialised centres of a larger size?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s role in the NHS IT programme. He is right: we have a great deal to be thankful for in much of the IT that was rolled out under the previous Administration. It failed at a local level rather than a national level—it perhaps failed for honourable reasons—but that is history now and we need to move forward and find other ways of delivering the benefits which his Government identified and we are determined should be delivered at provider and commissioning levels. That is why there is emphasis in the mandate, in chapter 2.6, around technology because it is important that we have inter-operative systems at every level.
The noble Lord asked about the costing of the mandate and, in particular, the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme—or the Nicholson challenge as it is sometimes known. We refer to that on at least two occasions in the mandate, at chapter 6.4 and chapter 8.1. The NHS Commissioning Board has confirmed that it will continue to implement the Nicholson challenge and we will work with it to ensure that that happens.
As regards service configuration, the noble Lord will note that in chapter 3.4 we draw attention to that issue and, in particular, to the four tests that need to be met before service configuration can be considered acceptable. Those four tests must be determined locally and there must be a clinical buy-in to any reconfiguration of services. That is one of the most important features of the framework surrounding that area. We may well see fewer centres for a number of conditions but, if we do, it will not be through a top-down edict but because doctors and other health professionals think that it is the right thing to do for patients.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, there was an agreement between the usual channels that it is the Government Benches, then the Opposition and then the Cross Benches. The noble Baroness is seeking to reinterpret what has already been agreed.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the mandate. When we were debating the Bill, I requested that the mandate should be short, precise and well-focused, and it is all of those things. I particularly welcome the focus on the importance given to improving standards in maternity services. The mother’s experience and the start of life are very important and have a huge impact on the long-term well-being of children.
I wish to link the outcomes framework with the mandate. On the outcomes framework, at page 11 under “Trauma” we are told that this is an area for further improvement. It states:
“As part of the development of the placeholder ...‘improving recovery from injuries and trauma’ the indicator has now been defined as ‘Proportion of people who recover from major trauma’”.
That links very much with what my noble friend was saying earlier about expertise. The point I want to make on the mandate is that we are told that the objectives in the mandate can be realised only through local empowerment. The board’s role in the new system will require it to consider how best to balance different ways of enabling local and national delivery. These may include the duties and capabilities for engaging and mobilising patients, professionals and communities in the shaping of local services.
My concern is on A&E and the emergency services. With the NHS Commissioning Board having now appointed Tim Kelsey to look at communications, how can we get public leadership to understand that expertise in certain areas is very important for survival? The footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the football field and passed several A&E departments to get to the one that saved his life because the expertise was there. Is there a requirement in the mandate that there should be a mobilising and further education of the community so that it understands what expertise is needed in order to save lives?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes a series of extremely important points and I agree with everything she said about maternity services. Emergency services will be commissioned at a local level by clinical commissioning groups but that cannot be the end of the story. She rightly implied that paramedics and trauma care doctors require skills in sometimes very sophisticated techniques of maintaining life at the scene of an accident, for example, and hospital procedures. These skills must be maintained and improved. The short answer to her question is quite consciously missing from this mandate. This is the need for Health Education England to work very closely with the board because the Centre for Workforce Intelligence and Health Education England will have to ensure that we have not only the right numbers in the NHS workforce but those with the right skills and the right level of skills. As she rightly said, we also need to educate the public that the health service does not consist of a series of buildings; it consists of a network of services. We will have advanced considerably if the public can understand rather better than they generally do that the continuation and improvement of services matter, rather than bricks and mortar.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I declare my interest as Professor of Surgery at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I very much welcome the noble Earl’s indication that the five objectives of the mandate are now clearly linked to the five parts of the outcomes framework. However, successful and meaningful commissioning decisions will critically place intense focus on the development of metrics in the outcomes framework. Local commissioning will be completely meaningless without objective metrics set as part of the commissioning process at a local level and without the ability to measure those outcomes. With specific emphasis on chronic conditions, what progress has been made on integrated care pathway metrics for integrated care both in the community and in the hospital? If there is little progress, when will we ensure that we have integrated care pathway metrics available to ensure that we drive forward meaningful local commissioning decisions?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord has alighted on an extremely important area. We have been very careful in constructing the outcomes framework to make sure that we define deliverable outcome indicators. The NHS Commissioning Board is satisfied that the indicators are realistic but I have to be candid with him. This represents work in progress as the precise way in which the board will demonstrate that it has made progress against each of the indicators has not been defined in every case. I can assure him that it will be. It will be up to the board, however, to construct a system of local accountability to ensure that the clinical commissioning groups are held to account against realistic demonstrable indicators which match those of the NHS outcomes framework, not least in the area of chronic conditions. The patient pathway is work in progress, too, but much of its quality can be measured by reference to the patient experience. That is one of the central domains of the outcomes framework, on which a lot of work has been done. I would be happy to write to him on that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Earl a little further on the part about IT in the mandate. My noble friend Lord Warner also referred to it. Would he develop a little the expectation in the mandate about developing the electronic patient record, which I feel is an aspiration rather than a practical reality if it is going to take place within two years? Can he help me by describing the way in which progress can be measured, and how is this to be achieved in a period when the pressure is on local resources and there is a dispersal to local responsibility which earlier he described as being a problem?
Earl Howe
There are several objectives around our wish to see more patients having access to their records, not only to enable them to order repeat prescriptions and make appointments with their GPs online, which many practices already enable, but also to access their own personal health records where they wish to do so. This, too, is a work in progress. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them that there are clear confidentiality issues involved in this area. What we cannot have is a system that is open to breaches of security. However, work is going on with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association on that point. We have said that it is our ambition that everyone should be able to access their GP records online by 2015. That is the ambition and we think that it is achievable. However, once again I would be happy to keep the noble Baroness updated as work continues.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank the noble Earl for the imaginative and humane part he has played in producing this mandate and say that it adds even further to what is already a remarkable record. I want to put two questions to him about the fourth objective in the mandate which in a sense will complement what he has already said about new technology, as well as what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has said about it. I want to ask him about two more specifically human aspects that fall under the fourth objective.
The first is the great importance of training health assistants to meet some of the responsibilities of their role in terms of communicating with patients. We are now putting a heavy burden of responsibility on health assistants who, of course, are not fully trained nurses and therefore are not trained in communicating with patients. Secondly, perhaps I may draw his attention to a specific area of what I think is serious failure in the NHS and its relationship with local government, and that is the field of rehabilitation, which is now probably one of the weakest areas in terms of trying to assist patients and give them a good experience of the NHS.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is absolutely right to raise both of those issues. On healthcare assistants, I can confirm that the work by Skills for Health and Skills for Care is proceeding in a very encouraging way. We are still on track to deliver a system that will enable healthcare assistants to become accredited on a voluntary basis to a register, and that is obviously a welcome step in the direction of ensuring that we can upskill the workforce both in secondary care settings and in social care. However, much will still depend on nurses in those settings to supervise healthcare assistants, and we look to the management of hospitals and care homes to ensure that proper supervision is conducted and, indeed, that there is proper training at the bedside and in the care homes of elderly people. Again, this is work in progress, but I am glad to say that the progress is real and encouraging.
On rehabilitation, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that NHS continuing care and social care recognise the importance of ensuring that patients recover quickly. It is our ambition that the patient experience should be published and a measure of the quality of the service that is being delivered. Over the past two years we have made available considerable additional resources to local authorities and we will continue to do that so as to ensure that their budgets are not put under as much strain as they would otherwise be, and thus enable them to deliver these very important services.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 1 because I submit that part 1 of Schedule 16 is totally unnecessary and counterproductive to achieving the rehabilitation revolution on which the Government are now embarked. Indeed, “punitive” is a pejorative word which is a red herring to achieving that revolutionary purpose. What I am going to say will also cover amendments up to and including Amendment 11A, which are all connected with this part of the Bill.
When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I used to remind Home Secretaries that I dealt only with facts, and reported and commented on what I had actually seen, or not seen, during inspections and visits. Anything contrary to those facts that they heard, from officials or anyone else, was fudge; and woe betide them if they tried to make improvements based on fudge, because they would get fudged improvements. My successor described this far more elegantly than I did when she referred to “virtual prisons”, which is how they were described by officials to Ministers.
What I find most disturbing about what is now before us—and indeed what is not now before us such as the content of Amendments 14 and 20, which I hope we will reach before I have to leave for a long-standing engagement—is that so much of it is fudge, including parts of it announced by the Prime Minister in a speech on 22 October. I will list some of those because I hope that noble Lords will join me in being disturbed. There seems to be a supposition that the probation service is not tough enough, because it does not want to be. That is absolute nonsense. The probation service achieves very good results, as we have heard already. It is not that it does not want to do more. It cannot do more because it has not got the resources. In their own impact statement on the Bill, referring to the word “punitive”, which I think is thoroughly unfortunate, the Government said:
“Given a limit on the overall level of resources available for probation services, delivering a clear punitive element to every community order may cause the primarily rehabilitative requirements to be substituted for primarily punitive ones … There is a risk that some of the rehabilitative benefits of current Community Orders could be lost with adverse implications for the re-offending rate of those offenders subject to community orders”.
We are told that it is all about the reoffending rate and about protecting the public by reducing reoffending. Why introduce something that is likely to damage that aim? In other words, the Government should not do it. I will not speak for my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, who has already mentioned how offensive he found the presumption of giving judges direction about being punitive, when they already knew that that was their purpose in sentencing.
Secondly, in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others on 7 November, the Minister said that,
“it would not be appropriate for the Government to provide a rigid definition of the circumstances that would qualify as exceptional: this can relate only to the facts of each individual case and is a decision for the court on the evidence before it”.
That is exactly what courts do now. So why do we need this? Why do we need to go chasing down? If Government cannot think of all these exceptions, Heaven knows, we cannot. It does not seem appropriate to include this in legislation.
Finally, in these hard economic times, the question of fines must be related to the ability to pay, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has already said during proceedings on the Bill. Do the Government really think that more could be done to fine more people when they do not have the resources to pay the fines? What will be the result? I do not see that this has been thought through.
The Prime Minister also made two other fudged statements that I challenge in relation to the delivery of this proposal. He said:
“If you’re on a community sentence, you will be supervised”.
Who by and how? A quarter of a million people are currently under probation supervision and we know already that probation officers are extremely stretched in providing the supervision that they have to provide now. If cuts are to be made, we need to know how this supervision is to be carried out. In other words, we need to know the results of the probation consultation which was published to exactly the same list of stakeholders, as the Government said, as the community sentence consultation. If we are being asked to satisfy ourselves and say that we are satisfied with this supervision that the Prime Minister has announced will be available, it stands to reason that we must be able to examine the resources and come to a conclusion as to whether they will be enough, and give our advice based on our experience. Frankly, I find it totally extraordinary that this House should be asked to come to this sort of decision and conclusion without having all the facts before it.
In addition, going on from probation, we are told that payment by results is to be introduced into this process. Indeed, the Prime Minister said:
“By the end of 2015, I want to see payment by results spread right across rehabilitation”.
How on earth is that to happen if, at this present moment, the Secretary of State for Justice has suspended the publication of any data on the one trial at Peterborough, which is not strictly payment by results but social impact bonds, and when there cannot be any information for the next 18 months anyway because no prisoner will have been out for long enough to qualify for the two years needed to judge whether anything has worked? If the Secretary of State has also suspended any work on the randomised control trial, which is the basis of the comparison that is meant to be made, how is anyone to come to any conclusions?
Although that is social impact bonds, two other pilots were being conducted by the probation service—one in Wales and one in Staffordshire and the West Midlands. I understand that the Secretary of State has paused both of them. So no work is going on into payment by results. Nobody knows whether it works. It is a jump into the unknown. It is costing millions, put in by people on good faith at the moment. If we do not know what is happening and are not to be given any indication how it happened, how can we pass any reasonable judgment on whether this is a sensible way to proceed?
I also question whether the Government have bothered to look seriously at the results of an interesting conference run by Make Justice Work. It had 30 practitioners dealing with payment by results. They came up with four principles that have to be observed and four comments on what is happening now. First, they said that the Ministry of Justice’s present plans appear not to allow sufficient time for necessary experimentation and fine-tuning. Secondly, they questioned how success would be measured. Thirdly, they said that there is huge difference in the market and that some of the smaller organisations do not have access to the capital to enable them to contribute what they have to. Finally, they asked who is going to evaluate and inspect it. In other words, there is a vast vacuum here. It worries me that we are being driven down a route and asked to take decisions based on this word “punitive”, whatever it means, when we are talking about rehabilitating offenders to protect the public.
Thinking in my bath last night, I felt that, in a way, the Government are treating this House with contempt. They are asking people who not only know a certain amount about these issues but who care very deeply about them and also care on behalf of the practitioners in the field. What worries me about them is that they do not feel that they are being listened to. They feel that masses of theories are coming out of the Ministry of Justice and no notice is being taken of the practitioners. It is extremely unwise to launch a case like this with such poor evidence and so much in the air. Too much depends on it and we cannot afford, and it would not be sensible, to go down this route. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 2 to 10 inclusive.
Lord Woolf
I wondered whether anyone other than on the opposition Bench wanted to say something on this—I certainly do. I start by disclosing that I am the chairman of the Prison Reform Trust and the amendments in my name were put down with its support.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is absolutely right with his amendment. Whenever I get to my feet, I am conscious that as a young advocate, I appeared before a very well known judge, Mr Justice Stable, to advance an argument that my client should not be convicted of murder but manslaughter, and he said to me, “Mr Woolf, if you heed my advice, you would not water the brandy”. I fear that by getting to my feet, I may be inadvertently watering the brandy of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because, as has been pointed out, if we get rid of the clause as a whole, we do not need to bother with the detail.
As to the detail, if it remains, I urge the House to get rid of the word “exceptional”. It has been used in legislation in the past. Wherever it has appeared, it has caused difficulties, not least because the question is: what is exceptional and what is not exceptional? That gives the advocate a difficult task; probably more importantly, it also gives a difficult task to the judge. You get into situations where judges are tempted to give an exceptionally wide meaning to the word “exceptional”. I remember a case where I did just that, because it created such an obvious nonsense that it resulted in injustice. A great judge, Lord Bingham, took a much narrower view of the meaning of that word than I did. The fact that two successive Lord Chief Justices should interpret that word in different ways illustrates my point.
With regard to the first of my tabled amendments, I urge the House to deal with the word “exceptional” if it allows this part of the schedule to survive. If it is removed, I suggest that proposed new subsection (2B) of Section 177 will have a sensible meaning. It would read:
“Subsection (2A) does not apply where there are … circumstances which … relate to the offence or to the offender … would make it unjust in all the circumstances for the court to comply with subsection (2A)(a) in the particular case, and … would make it unjust in all the circumstances for the court to impose a fine for the offence concerned”.
I do not think that the criticisms that I have made of “exceptional” apply to “unjust”. When judges are sentencing, they are trying daily to achieve a just sentence and if a sentence is unjust they will not impose it. The trouble with Section 177 is that if it is amended as set out in the schedule, it will become a vehicle for causing injustice. If you are sentencing you have lists of sentences for various offences, which you can impose. You might go down the list and decide that a community sentence is the appropriate one. Once a judge has decided that is appropriate, to say that he then has to perform an exercise to see whether that sentence is punitive—and put something else in if he comes to the conclusion that it is not—is really nonsense. It will cause him to do exactly what he has concluded is unjust. He has come to the conclusion that although the community sentence is necessary, it is not necessary to have an additional punitive penalty. From the practical point of view, that really is not a satisfactory outcome.
The other amendment with which I am involved in this group is Amendment 8. Or is that one not being spoken to yet? I apologise to the House; I will come to that later.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was thinking about not brandy but confectionery and I do not find this fudge, if one thinks about it, as being sweet and tasty. In every other way, however, I absolutely follow what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said, although my remarks will cover rather narrower ground than his.
I really wonder, as others have, whether this provision is necessary. If it is only gesture politics—I say that rather bluntly—it might not be so bad, although I would still deplore it because I deplore gesture politics, but it must mean something. As the noble Lord said, every day the courts do the things that we are being told this provision is directing them to do. I do not believe it does anything but restrict sentencing choices. It imposes a requirement that may be detrimental for offenders whom one is seeking to rehabilitate. I do not need to amplify that; we have a lot to get through and these points will be made better by others throughout today.
I wonder whether Amendment 2 achieves anything. I support the sentiment behind it but changing “must” to “may” does not add anything if we accept that punishment is already one of the purposes of sentencing —which it is, under Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As I say, however, I am with that sentiment.
The letter dated 7 November that we received from the Minister said that the term “exceptional circumstances” is very tightly drawn. I had to go back and reread that, because I think “exceptional circumstances” is very widely drawn when one thinks about the context in which we are debating this. As noble Lords have so often said, and as others outside this House have reminded us, such a very high proportion of offenders suffer from mental illness, substance misuse and dependency that one could not say that there was anything exceptional about their circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to debt in the context of imposing a fine. That made me think that being in very straitened financial circumstances, combined with other factors, is often a prompt or a nudge towards theft and various offences.
When we last debated this schedule, I suggested that “particular circumstances” would be a better term than “exceptional circumstances”. Discussing that with colleagues later, we wondered about “special circumstances”, and my noble friend Lady Linklater has tabled Amendment 6 to propose that term. Essentially, we are trying to suggest a number of other possible terms—not alternatives because I do not think “exceptional” is right—if the Government are insistent, as I expect they will be, on retaining this part of the schedule. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has taken a scalpel to it and pointed us to the inconsistency between the terms “just” and “exceptional circumstances”. I am very happy to line up behind him if that is the way that the House thinks we should go if we do not get rid of this altogether.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 5, but I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said and his Amendment 1 to take the whole of this out. I am also happy to support Amendments 4 or 6. I shall make the very obvious point that every community order will be, for the offender, a form of punishment because it is mandatory. You do not need to use the word “punishment” because it is implicit in a community order. I am sorry to say it again, but since the Government have put a form of punishment as part of a community order, as if a community order was not a punishment, I find this extremely difficult to follow. The terms are in conflict with each other in this proposal by the Government. I had not seen it that way to quite the same extent as I did looking at this today. For goodness sake, why put it in? It is sad that the Government seem to need to use the words “punitive” and “punishment” when it is already clear that a community order is punishment because it is an order that whoever receives it will have to obey. If that particular offender does not obey a community service order, he or she will be punished for failure to obey a punishment that has already been imposed. In my view, the words “punitive” and “punishment” are unnecessary, inappropriate and profoundly unattractive. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I wonder whether this is gesture politics. I very much hope it is not, but she made a point that this House ought seriously to consider.
I do not mind whether we use the word “particular”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, instead of “exceptional”. Preferably, perhaps, we could do what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, which would be to take the word out altogether. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has suggested using “special”. The point is that “exceptional” should not be there for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord has already given. I do not mind how it is altered but the word exceptional has to come out.
The Government have to listen to the people in this House who spoke last week and today and said that this will not do. As I think I said previously, I urgently and respectfully suggest to the Ministry of Justice that this is an unsuitable way to be going ahead. As I have already said, it is profoundly unattractive. The words “punitive”, “punishment” and “exceptional” should be taken out. The Government should recognise that a community order is a punishment. They should not just look to the lobby of the press or the public, but should do what is right.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
My Lords, I endorse everything that has been said thus far in criticism. In my time, I have acted as a sentencer and done a touch of community service. As I understand it, the requirements referred to in the amendment are the requirements under Section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that can be made when a community order is imposed. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said, they all require the offender to do something which he or she would otherwise probably not choose to do, so they all have an element of punishment or sanction.
How is this amendment to work? Is the sentencer to be bound to impose one of the requirements by way of a community order exclusively by way of punishment or does the sentencer merely have to say, “I am imposing this not merely for the purpose of rehabilitation but also to punish you”? If it is the latter, the effect is purely cosmetic. If it is the former, the effect, I would submit, is even less desirable.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I support the approach of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham to the whole of this schedule. We have been over this ground before. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has pointed out, punishment is in the sentence. The important scenario is how that sentence is to be worked out for the rehabilitation of the offender, with the effort being to see that that offender does not return to the court. As we all know, all too often that is not the case.
My other concern is that we have had no result—again, this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham —from the Government on the probation consultation. For us to be asked to make judgments at this stage without having in front of us all the facts about who will do a lot of this very necessary, specialised work, is not acceptable. Frankly, I do not want any of the alternatives that have been suggested but, if others are prepared to keep this whole section in and I had to choose, I would go for that suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Then it would be left to the judges to make the decision, which is the way in which we have in the past treated, and should continue to treat, the judicial system.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, alongside those who have already spoken, I humbly subscribe my support for this amendment. If ever there was an argument on the part of government that has been shot through and shattered, this is it. If ever there was a piece of legislation where there was an overwhelming and unanswerable case against it, this, in my respectful submission, is it. I appreciate the argument put forward on 30 October by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he mildly, with considerable charm, chastised me. He said that it is wrong to argue that a Government should take a view which is different from the policy that has been established by judges over a long period of time. I think I do him fairness in summarising it in that way. He must be right. Parliament is sovereign and supreme. Judges do their best within the limits set down by law, but they can—and should, on occasion—be overruled by Parliament. That is what Parliament is about.
However, I believe that there should be a qualification to that rule: Parliament should never do that, and certainly should never circumscribe the discretion of judges, properly and justly used, unless a case had been made for that, and that case would rest on facts. In my submission, this case does not rest on facts at all. It rests much more on some form of political prejudice. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on 30 October, quoted a speech made by the Prime Minister on 22 October dealing with this particular matter. These were the words used by the Prime Minister on that occasion:
“‘At every single level of sentence this Government is getting tougher ... we are toughening up community sentences too. If you are on a community sentence you will be supervised-you will be properly punished-you will be forced to complete that sentence’.”.—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 523.]
It seems to me—and I made the point in a general way on the previous occasion—that essentially the Prime Minister was talking about including some element of hurt in a sentence. That is not the same thing as punishment.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already made the point that the fact that a person, with the sanction of the law, is enjoined to do something that he may not wish to do, is of itself a punishment. He is subjected to the sovereignty of the court in that respect. I would argue further that the very fact that a person is convicted of a criminal offence, and that stain will be on his escutcheon for ever, even with all the ameliorations of the 1974 Act, is of itself a punishment. However, what is asked for here is something that society regards as hurting the offender. The rationale behind it seems to be that society in some way, through the courts, has failed to recognise that essential element of hurt. In other words, it is saying, “You are namby-pamby. You are soft. You are far too liberal in your attitude in this matter. You are not tough enough”. There is no evidence whatever to support that contention.
As far as the probation service is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has shown quite clearly that it is tough, it is not soft and it is succeeding. The vast majority of cases are dealt with satisfactorily up to level 3; indeed, some of them up to level 4. No professional body could be expected to do better than that. Where is the evidence of the failure to exercise the element of harshness and pain—for that is what the Prime Minister was talking about?
It is entirely proper for a Government, where they are justified in doing so, to circumscribe the discretion that lies with any judge. I think that both Governments have been doing it a little too liberally over the past 20 years. Be that as it may, where they genuinely believe that there is such a case, they are entitled and indeed, one might say, obliged to do so. The case has not been made. If the Government cannot come forward with any hard evidence at all, they will, in effect, be relying on what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, described really as a cosmetic and rather vulgar attitude, where they will be seeking a populist commendation for something that is utterly unworthy.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I support entirely the sentiments behind the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I support verbatim the comments that were made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and share the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the use of the word “exceptional” in these provisions.
These proposals ignore what happens every day of the week in court rooms up and down the country. There is a substantial class of cases—or there are classes of cases—which are not particularly common but fall far short of being exceptional. I am the last person here who should attempt to explain to this House in the presence of members of the judiciary who have already spoken what the term “exceptional” means, but usually it means roughly what the dictionary definition says that it means. These are not the common class of cases; they are truly exceptional.
I mention one group of cases that I have experienced as a practitioner and sitting as a recorder and that causes me real concern in the context of this part of the schedule. It is a group of cases in which the defendants are usually women who have been subjected to often very severe domestic violence and sometimes sexual violence. They have done something fairly serious in terms of criminal law and have usually pleaded guilty. They have to be sentenced by the court, but punishment is somewhere low down the list of the priorities that the judge passing sentence has in mind. The sentence can serve a useful service; there are elements in community sentences that are restorative or retributive and can help to resolve the situation that has given rise to the appearance in court. The requirement of punishment in all but exceptional cases seems to ignore the reality of a class like the one that I have mentioned. For that reason, I invite my noble friend the Minister to hearken very closely to this debate, which has had some very authoritative voices speaking in it, and think again.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I add my voice to the chorus of consent as to what this amendment is all about. It seems to arise from the Government’s wish to include specifically punitive requirements in order to, as the Minister for Justice has said, put punishment back into sentencing. The goal is to appear to be tough. This move is simply crude, inappropriate, and very unlikely to realise outcomes that are positive or helpful in any way in the long run. It raises the fundamental issue of what the ultimate goal of sentencing is, or should be, and where the balance should lie with punishment for its own sake. Here I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that when the Government talk about punishment in this context it implies something painful, distasteful and unpleasant. I am clear in my own mind that the reduction of reoffending should be the prime purpose of sentencing, when sentencers make their choices from the available options.
If punishment has its place, we know from the Government’s own research that punitive options on their own achieve nothing in terms of reducing reoffending, and only when allied with other constructive sanctions have they any impact. There is a real risk that requiring sentencers to add this extra element will restrict their freedom to set appropriate sentences based on the facts and circumstances of individual cases. Invariably, there will be a range of support needs at issue. We know, as we have already heard, that the majority of those coming before the courts have significant mental health and learning difficulties, as well as substance misuse, real social deprivation, and so on.
What constitutes exceptional circumstances when what may be exceptional in the general population is more like the norm in the offending population? Their needs are indeed exceptional, so what are the courts to do when the exceptional is the norm? I have put my name to Amendment 6, which seeks to,
“leave out ‘exceptional’ and insert ‘special’”,
to try to make a meaningful distinction, but in the end the courts must be free to decide this issue, as has been commonly agreed. They have to be trusted to find the right balance between punishment and rehabilitation in the decisions they have to make based on individual circumstances and need. Punishment can be used but emphatically not for its own sake and should always be combined with rehabilitative requirements if the ultimate goal of reducing reoffending is to be achieved. It follows, therefore, that the various elements of a disposal must be compatible with each other. I echo what has already been said and remind my noble friend the Minister that all requirements do indeed represent a punishment where freedom is being curtailed. It is true that we have a long way to go before all community sentences are as effective as we would like them to be, but punishment for its own sake is not the answer.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I support the gist of the amendments as they have been spoken to. I apologise to the Committee for turning up a bit late for this important debate. I emphasise the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the sentence itself is the punishment, if one wants to use that word, rather than necessarily the elements within the sentence.
We recently dealt with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and the relevant training for magistrates and sentencers up and down the country is under way right now. In that training sentencers are told that suspended sentences could have no requirements at all, so that the suspended sentence is itself the punishment for the offence rather than any requirements that may be added by the sentencing Bench. In my view this clearly shows that the Government also agree that the sentence itself is the punishment and that there is no requirement at all in certain, admittedly rather unusual, circumstances for there to be any particular elements to that sentence. Therefore, I do not see what the need is for “punitive” in the first place. I agree with previous speakers that it is a piece of political grandstanding and does not add anything to the Government’s objectives as they are already being rolled out in the training of magistrates in relation to the previous criminal justice Bill.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my Amendment 2 is designed to find out rather more about the reasons behind the Government’s thinking and how paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 is to be interpreted. The schedule clearly states that where a court makes a community order that must include,
“at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment, or … a fine”
unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Government have decided that there will be exceptional circumstances in around 5% of cases. It is not clear why the Government are going down this road. Their own impact assessment refers to research that has been undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, as I understand it. The impact assessment states:
“Offenders who receive supervision, punitive requirement (unpaid work or curfew) and a programme requirement were less likely to re-offend and committed fewer re-offences within a 2 year period of the community order, compared to those who receive supervision and a punitive requirement”.
It then goes on to say:
“There was no impact on re-offending of adding a punitive requirement to certain other specified combinations of requirements”.
Finally it says:
“Adding supervision to a standalone punitive requirement reduces re-offending”.
Most people would regard those statements as not exactly a ringing endorsement of the value of a punitive requirement. Further on in their own impact assessment, the Government come out with this statement:
“The Government considers that community orders are currently not sufficiently demanding for offenders”.
Is that all of them? All community orders are not sufficiently demanding? If that is the case, then what do the Government intend to do to make all community orders more demanding, since that does not seem to be referred to in any documentation? I hope the Minister will tell us whether that statement in the impact assessment represents the Government’s view when they say:
“The Government considers that community orders are currently not sufficiently demanding for offenders”.
It does not say some of them. It does not say the third that do not include the punitive element. It just says they are not sufficiently demanding for offenders. The Minister will, no doubt, respond to that point and tell us how the Government intend to make the community orders sufficiently demanding in their view.
It says further on—in paragraph 37 if the Minister is interested—in the impact assessment, which is, as I understand it, the Government’s own document:
“Given the need for community orders to remain proportionate to the offence committed, delivering a clear punitive element to every community order may, in some cases, cause certain requirements to be substituted by punitive ones. The research that we have undertaken does not tell us about the impact on re-offending of replacing requirements with more punitive ones”.
In other words, the Government do not know what the implications of their proposal will be for rehabilitation. Yet they are still proceeding. There is no other interpretation that can be put on that extract from the Government’s own impact assessment.
We have previously raised the issue of the victim surcharge and I would like to talk a little about that. The victim surcharge is for offences committed on or after 1 October this year—the beginning of last month. It will be, with no apparent exceptions, £60 where a community order is given as a sentence to an adult offender. Since for offences committed before 1 October this year there was no requirement to include a victim surcharge where the sentence was a community order, will the victim surcharge of £60—which I believe is now mandatory with a community order—be regarded as the equivalent of a fine, as referred to in proposed new subsection (2A) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16? If it is, we need not concern ourselves much more with this part of Schedule 16, since every community order will automatically include what is, in effect, a fine, albeit called a victim surcharge, and meet the requirement to include at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment or the imposition of a fine.
If the new £60 victim surcharge for an adult offender, and £15 for a youth offender, which has, I think, just been made mandatory where a community order is imposed, is not to be regarded as a fine under proposed new subsection (2A) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16, then why not? From the point of view of the offender, the effect is still the same whether it is a £60 fine or a £60 victim surcharge. They still have to pay the money or run the distinct risk of more severe action being taken, including the possible loss of liberty. This £60 victim surcharge is a new penalty to be paid by the offender, since it applies only to offences committed since the beginning of last month. It was not in existence at the time the Bill was being drafted. Has the victim surcharge of £60 to be imposed where there is a community order changed the situation and if not why, why not?
We have a situation at the moment under the Bill where presumably the court, with a so-called non-punishment community order, could levy a very small fine of, say, £15, because of the financial circumstances of the offender. That fine would be deemed to be the equivalent of a punishment under proposed new subsection (2A). The court would then have to impose a victim surcharge of £60—some four times higher than the £15 fine, which could cause the offender much greater difficulty in terms of payment. However, that would not be deemed a punishment under the terms of the proposed new subsection. That does not appear to make a lot of sense or have much logic behind it.
The wording of our amendment, which substitutes “may” for “must” would, among other things, enable the court to decide that the £60 victim surcharge, which is payable when a community order is handed down as the sentence, was sufficient as a punishment element, and the court would not also be required to include either a fine or a further requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment, as currently appears to be the case under proposed new subsection (2A).
I do not intend to go over other points. They have been eloquently made, and repetition would achieve nothing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to all the points raised and questions asked in this debate.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it seems a long time since I was looking forward to us reaching this part of the Bill, where, as noble Lords will recall, we slightly bent the rules—goodness knows what they are now—to allow for Clause 23 to bring in rehabilitation proposals. Of course, in a debate in which a former president of the Supreme Court, a former Lord Chief Justice, a former president of the Family Division and a former Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons give their opinions, I listen—as I indeed listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Hamwee and Lady Linklater, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. We had a very interesting discussion about the relationship and power of Parliament and the judiciary. I look forward to reading the noble Lord’s memoirs, which I notice have just been published in Welsh. Have they been published in English? I do not know.
Lord McNally
They are on my Christmas list.
The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a nuclear option, which I will address in my remarks. However, I will start by reassuring noble Lords that the Government fully recognise the point that underpins many of these amendments and agree that offenders who receive community orders are a diverse group, with wide-ranging characteristics and individual circumstances. For example, such offenders are more likely than the general population to have a disability, to come from low-income households or to receive work-related benefits. Many other examples were brought out in detail by the practitioners who responded to our public consultation on these proposals.
It is clearly vital that community orders take into account these diverse needs. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to non-custodial sentences. At the same time, we also need to recognise that community orders cannot focus only on the reoffending needs of the offender. Many who receive community orders have committed not inconsequential offences. The sort of offences for which sentencing guidelines suggest community orders would be appropriate include actual bodily harm, thefts in the hundreds or low thousands of pounds and first-time domestic burglaries.
While it is critical to address the causes of such offending, it is legitimate to expect such behaviour to face punishment. It is clear that fines and custodial sentences provide punishment for an offender; but at the moment it is possible for a community order to be based solely on addressing the offending needs of an individual offender. Our argument is that, by including the punishment element, we will win the vital public confidence for the holistic response that is at the heart of our proposals: the rehabilitation of offenders.
Our provisions seek to balance the purpose of punishment with ensuring that the courts retain flexibility to tailor community orders around offenders’ circumstances. To that end, I remind noble Lords that we have already amended our original consultation proposal that courts should be required to include specified elements, such as community payback or a curfew requirement, in every community order. Practitioners were clear that, although some community order requirements such as curfews or unpaid work were more often likely to represent a punishment than others, in the right circumstances—this comment has been made by a number of noble Lords—all the existing 12 community order requirements could potentially be punitive for a particular offender. That is why Part 1 of Schedule 16 gives the courts the flexibility to choose which requirement would be a proportionate and appropriate punishment for an individual offender.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord said that the surcharge was not a fine. Will he confirm that it has to be paid? What happens if it is not paid? Will he confirm that action will be taken, just as it would be with a fine?
Lord McNally
Yes, that is exactly the case. However, I also said that the court would be able to use discretion about the circumstances of the individual.
Lord Rosser
In 95% of cases it will not, because the Government have already decided that “exceptional circumstances” will apply to only 5% of cases.
Lord McNally
I would be interested to know where the Opposition stand on two things. First, with the victim surcharge we intend to raise considerable amounts of money from offenders that will go to victims. I presume that the Opposition are in favour of that. Secondly, we are determined to pursue offenders. I know that, particularly in this House, we always hear about the hard cases—but far too many people who offend and are given fines then do not pay them. We intend to pursue them and make sure that they do pay them.
Lord Rosser
We are certainly quite happy for people who do not pay fines to be pursued. I do not know why the Minister raised the issue of what the Opposition think of the victim surcharge. We have never voiced opposition to it. I think that he raised that issue in order to dodge the very direct question that I asked when I put it to him that the victim surcharge is very similar to a fine for the offender. They have got to pay it and if they do not they will be in the same kind of trouble as they would be if they did not pay a fine. The Minister raised the issue of the victim surcharge simply to avoid answering the very direct question that he was asked.
Lord McNally
I was asked a direct question and I gave a direct answer. The victim surcharge will be in place, but it is not a fine. That is what the noble Lord asked and that is what I answered. Now I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank all those who made such powerful contributions to this very interesting and wide-ranging debate. Although I say “wide-ranging”, there was no doubt in my mind that everyone was focused on the primary issue throughout, and covered various aspects of it.
The Minister mentioned that the public sought confidence in the system. Confidence comes from proof that things work. What worried me in all the contributions that were made was that they disclosed vast gaps in things being carried out that have been put to the public as being matters in which they can have confidence. Too much is not proven and not known at present.
I will ask the Minister two questions. First, when can I expect a reply to my letter of 4 October to the Secretary of State, asking for a meeting on this? I have not even had a reply. I would like a meeting because, like many noble Lords, I am functioning slightly in the dark. The Secretary of State is an éminence grise and it would be enormously helpful to find out from him exactly what he feels and thinks.
Secondly, I hope that between now and Report it may be possible to have a meeting and a briefing about this so that we can get to the bottom of some of the issues that have been raised. I do not think that this is an appropriate time to test the opinion of the House. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(za) have regard to the need to promote rehabilitation,”
Lord Rosser
Our amendments in this group include a requirement to promote rehabilitation. This requirement appears to be missing from this part of Schedule 16, despite the words of government Ministers recently that promoting rehabilitation was one of their objectives. Indeed, the Minister waxed lyrical in his response to a debate in Committee by telling us that,
“here we had recently a Conservative Prime Minister talking positively about a rehabilitation revolution. That is very welcome and is something to build on”,—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 546.]
not apparently, though, in this schedule as that objective does not seem to be strongly reflected in the terms of the Bill, in particular, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16. Can the Minister tell us why the Government decided not to make it a requirement on a court when making a community order to also include at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of rehabilitation unless there were exceptional circumstances in line with the provisions in proposed new subsection (2B)? There is not even a requirement, I believe, for a court to consider including at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of rehabilitation.
When we last discussed this matter, the Minister accepted the statistics given by my noble friend Lord Beecham about the nature of people who come into our criminal justice system in relation to educational achievement—or, rather, lack of it—drug and alcohol problems, mental health disorders, having been in care and having been unemployed. Indeed, the Minister has referred to these issues already today.
In his response to the debate in Committee, the Minister said that,
“the prize for getting rehabilitation on to the agenda is extremely important”,—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 546.]
but not, apparently, in this part of Schedule 16, which is all about mandatory punishment.
The Minister also told us:
“Somebody who may never have got up before noon in his life might classify learning to read and write as a punishment”.—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 548.]
He later said:
“The point I am making is that the punitive concept is widely drawn and is very much in the hands of the sentencer”.—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 549.]
In the light of those two statements, which conflict with the Government’s previously declared intentions as to what would be defined as a requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment as set out in new subsection (2A) in Schedule 16, perhaps the Minister could tell us when he responds what is the definition of the “punitive concept” which has been widely drawn and is very much in the hands of the sentencer. Perhaps the Minister could also tell us whether his statement that someone who may never have got up before noon might classify learning to read and write as a punishment means that a community order with a requirement to take a course developing reading and writing skills would be regarded as meeting the provision in new subsection (2A) in Schedule 16 of,
“at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment”.
The Minister was undoubtedly right in drawing attention to the fact that programmes designed to help rehabilitate the offender and reduce reoffending to the benefit of everyone involve punishment. There is a requirement for an offender to attend at specific times, on specific days, for a laid-down period of time, to undertake a specified programme or a specified activity which they most certainly would not otherwise have done. Having to undertake that programme or activity involves loss of liberty for the time they are involved, as they have to do it, and failure to attend or to treat the programme or activity seriously is liable to lead to the offender being brought back to court and either having the programme or activity made more onerous or another punishment imposed, which could include being sent to prison.
Rehabilitative programmes often involve offenders being forced to face up to their behaviour and way of life in a direct way, which can be challenging and distinctly uncomfortable for the offender. In our amendments we have listed programmes and activities which would be regarded as a punishment requirement under the terms of proposed new subsection (2A) in Schedule 16. We have also included unpaid work, a curfew, and exclusion in that list. We have not included as a punishment a requirement that would involve purely supervision.
If the Minister meant what he said on 30 October about somebody classifying learning to read and write as a punishment, and he will agree that the punitive concept is widely drawn and very much in the hands of the sentencer, he will accept our amendments or at least agree to come back on Report with government amendments along similar lines. I beg to move.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I think now is the appropriate time for me to deal with Amendment 8, which returns to the same problem indicated earlier. I hope I am right in assuming that the Government do not intend the provisions of Section 177 as amended to undermine the effectiveness of community sentencing. My amendment makes that clear by qualifying the requirement contained in the proposed new Subsection (2A) to exclude that provision where it is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the order in preventing reoffending by the offender. This at least gives the sentencing judge a way of not doing something that he knows will be destructive of the beneficial effect of community sentence.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord’s amendment goes to the heart of the issue. It would be ironical if what he is seeking to avoid were in fact to come about since all this should be about preventing reoffending. My Amendment 11 provides that none of this should affect the provisions of Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sets out the purposes of sentencing. I realise that it would have been better drafting if I had just referred to Section 142(1), but never mind; one can come back to that at a later stage.
I am seeking to ensure that we do not impose a hierarchy of purposes and that we leave punishment where it is as one of five principles. I am sure that the Minister understands that this is the quite simple purpose of this amendment. I hope that he can reassure the Committee that nothing here seeks to alter in any way those well established five equal partners in principle.
Lord McNally
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Let us be clear: of course the five principles are intact but, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, queried earlier, why bring legislation if we do not intend to change things? We do intend to change things. The whole thrust of what we are trying to do is to use community sentencing effectively, couple it with a real drive on rehabilitation, and also—and we think we have public support in this—use the element of punishment to drive home both the rehabilitation message and the punishment message.
Part of that has come out in our debates. There are noble Lords who believe that “exceptional” covers around a third of offenders. That is exactly the problem we are trying to address because the idea that somehow a third of offenders cannot be punished is what undermines public confidence. That is why we are making the point that exceptional circumstances apply to a very narrow group and that it is possible to put a punishment element into a much wider range of sentences while giving the court the flexibility to take account of the circumstances of the person before it. However, as I said in the earlier debate, we are going to resist those who want to amend the Bill so that there is a three-lane highway of exceptions from what we are trying to do.
Amendments 3, 3A and 8 focus on ensuring that the courts,
“have regard to the need to promote rehabilitation”,
and that punishment is not imposed at the expense of rehabilitation. Amendment 9 looks at the detail of what requirements might constitute punishment for an offender, and finally, Amendment 11 looks at the impact of the changes on the purposes of sentencing as set out in Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On the issues raised by the first three amendments in this group, I am happy to reassure the Committee that it is not the Government’s intention that any of these provisions should jeopardise the prospect of rehabilitation for offenders. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, I have already made the point a number of times that I am proud that the amendments we will be debating place rehabilitation so firmly on the agenda—and I keep on reinforcing what has been commended by the Prime Minister as part of this thrust of criminal justice reform.
Lord Woolf
Will the Minister forgive me if I ask him to indicate whether he thinks there cannot be a situation where a judge might conclude that the effectiveness of what is proposed by the Government might reduce the effectiveness of the order to prevent reoffending? If that is the judge’s conclusion with regard to the proposed new provision, does the noble Lord think that the judge should have an escape hatch?
Lord McNally
Yes, of course, judicial discretion should remain. But what I do not want to do from this Dispatch Box is give the impression that on the one hand we are saying down the corridor and on public platforms that we are going to make punishment a key part of giving credibility to community sentences, and that on the other hand the House of Lords is giving a nudge and a wink that actually the judiciary can do what it wants. That would be wrong. I hope that a learned judge, on seeing an exceptional case that needs that kind of judgment, would exercise that judgment. But I hope also that judges will see it as exceptional and not applying to a third of the cases before them. I hope that that is a sufficient assurance for the noble and learned Lord.
Community orders can, in the right circumstances, be highly effective at tackling the causes of offending. The Government are very clear that we need to build on the reductions in reoffending rates in recent years. That is why the Government are proposing to retain Section 148(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides that the requirement or requirements imposed as part of a community order should be those that are, in the court’s opinion, most suitable for that offender. That should provide reassurance on the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has just made. I would also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 177(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires courts to consider, when imposing two or more community order requirements, whether they are compatible with each other given the circumstances of the case. Again, the Government do not intend to change that requirement.
In short, these provisions will not prevent courts from imposing requirements that are focused on the offender’s rehabilitation or from imposing a combination of requirements that is most suited to the offender’s needs. While accepting the spirit in which Amendments 3 and 8 have been tabled, I believe that existing statutory frameworks already provide adequate safeguards.
Amendment 3A would change the nature of the punitive element provision so that the courts would be required only to impose a requirement that delivers both punishment and rehabilitation. It is of course true that many of the community order requirements can deliver two or more of the purposes of sentencing. If a court wishes to impose a sentence that delivers both punishment and rehabilitation, choosing a single requirement that delivers both is one possible option—but so is combining a punitive requirement with an additional requirement, ensuring, of course, that the total weight of the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a specific query about the example I gave. In theory, a single requirement, activity or programme along the lines that we talked about could fulfil this duty if a court felt it was appropriate for that particular offender. However, there will also be occasions where the court may decide that a purely or primarily punitive requirement is an appropriate response to a particular offence. We would not wish courts’ discretion to be limited so that they are required to impose both punishment and rehabilitation in cases where they do not believe both are necessary. However, as I previously stated, the Government firmly believe that all community sentences, bar in exceptional circumstances, should contain a punitive element. For this reason, while I entirely accept the point that punishment may often support rehabilitation, I do not believe that this amendment is desirable.
Turning to Amendment 9, a number of noble Lords have asked, both in Committee on 30 October and in today’s debate, which community order requirements courts could impose to fulfil this duty. I refer noble Lords back to the responses we received to our consultation on this issue. Practitioners were clear that, in the right circumstances, all 12 existing community order requirements could be punitive for a particular offender. The Government recognise the force of this argument. The courts are best placed to decide, on a case-by-case basis, what is punitive for a particular offender. That is why the Bill is drafted to give courts the flexibility to impose any community order requirement to fulfil the duty to include a punitive element, so long as they can be confident, on the evidence before them, that the requirement will genuinely prove to be punitive for that offender.
Of course, in practice, there are some community order requirements which courts are likely to make more use of than others. Again, this was a point that sentencers and those working with offenders made very clear in the consultation response. The consensus was that certain requirements, for the majority of offenders, are more likely to be punitive than others. The requirements they most commonly mentioned were curfews, other restrictions on liberty such as exclusion or prohibited activities, and unpaid work. That is why the Government would expect to see an increase in the use of such requirements if this provision is enacted. However, the Bill leaves it open to the courts to decide to impose other types of requirements if they believe, in the circumstances of a particular case, that this would fulfil the purposes of punishment.
Finally, turning to Amendment 11—
Lord Clinton-Davis
The noble Lord referred to other provisions. Would he define what he means?
Lord McNally
It is difficult. I do not know at what time the noble Lord joined our debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The noble Lord referred to other provisions which could be made by the judiciary in relation to Amendment 9.
Lord McNally
If the noble Lord is going to help me, I will certainly sit down.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Yes, I was going to help the noble Lord. There are nine listed in that list whereas there are 12 possible as part of the community order. Maybe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, meant: the additional three that are not listed.
Lord McNally
I will take that lifeline gratefully, but if there are other matters I will write to the noble Lord. I still cannot find the exact line.
It was requirements other than unpaid work, curfews or exclusions. I am now back on track. That takes us back to the point—we are now going full circle. Obviously, the concept of punishment is more likely to mean curfews, unpaid work, exclusions et cetera but, as we discussed earlier, it may be that there are other impositions which, for that particular offender, would be seen as a punishment. The court would have that flexibility to so define them. I hope that helps and I am sorry that I lost the thread. I am assured that I am on page 8. These notes are extremely useful.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for implying that he had not been an assiduous attendee. That was cheap. He asked a good question and I hope that I have now clarified it.
The point was that I was referring to the research that we had done. The consensus was that for the majority of offenders certain requirements are likely to be more punitive than others. As I said, the requirements they most commonly mentioned were curfews, other restrictions on liberty such as exclusion or prohibited activities, and unpaid work. That is why the Government expect to see an increase in those measures.
Finally, on Amendment 11, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that it is not the Government’s intention to detract from the court’s existing obligation to have regard to the five purposes of sentencing currently set out in Section 142(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If these provisions are agreed by both Houses, courts will continue to be required to have regard to all five purposes, whether that is punishment, rehabilitation, reparation, and so on. It will continue to be a matter for courts as to what weight they place on each requirement when sentencing a particular offender.
I remind noble Lords, though, that some purposes are likely to be more relevant than others for particular sentencing powers. For example, courts’ powers to discharge offenders absolutely or conditionally are predicated on the assumption that, in the circumstances of the case, it is inexpedient to inflict punishment. Similarly, while a fine can punish and deter an offender, it may do little towards the purpose of public protection. At the other end of the scale, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for any offender, the deprivation of liberty that results from an immediate custodial sentence remains and represents a punishment.
In these examples, the nature of the sentence being considered may draw courts’ attention to some purposes of sentencing over others, but courts are still bound to weigh the relevance of all five purposes of sentencing. The same is true of these provisions. While courts will be required to determine whether the circumstances of the offence and the offender justify imposing a requirement for the purpose of punishment, they will still have to weigh this against the relevance of other purposes when determining the overall sentence. Nothing in this requirement prevents a court imposing a single requirement that fulfils multiple purposes of sentencing or imposing multiple requirements to meet multiple purposes.
I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I will of course read these debates carefully. I hope that noble Lords will read them, too, because they will find a recurring theme of flexibility and trust in the judiciary and its judgment which should deflect some of the worst fears that have been expressed about our intentions. Our intention is to carry forward a rehabilitation revolution and put effective community sentencing at the heart of that. I fully appreciate that this House, particularly in these two debates, has done its proper job of fine-toothed combing what we propose and seeking assurances about our intentions. I hope that, on reflection, noble Lords will feel that, as it will work and with the flexibility we are building in, some of their concerns are not justified. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, can my noble friend go just slightly further into Section 142? I indicated I had realised that my drafting was not what it should have been. I have only just realised that Section 142(2) says that subsection (1), which is the five principles, does not apply,
“to an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law”.
My concern is that the punitive elements imposed by the new schedule might be construed as being fixed by law and therefore override subsection (1).
My noble friend has been very good in not yet teasing me about the fact that all the arguments I made about punitive elements could be made against me on the issue of rehabilitation because they are within this schedule as well. The arguments could go both ways. I have asked my noble friend a pretty technical question that I wanted to get on the record. He seems to be getting some advice but if he feels that this needs to wait, I would be happy to do so. It is not fair of me to have bowled him so big a googly.
Lord McNally
I shall simply blame my Box advisers if there was an opportunity to tease my noble friend which they did not draw to my attention. Perhaps there will be opportunity when we get to Report. I am always in awe of the assiduity with which my noble friend approaches her task. I will have a look at the point that she has made in the cold light of Hansard. The hot message from the Box is that the punitive element will not be a sentence fixed by law, but if there is any reason to clarify or modify that, I will write to my noble friend and make the letter available to the rest of the Committee.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Minister expressed the hope that we would read the debate carefully. I would have thought he accepted that I read them carefully—I have managed to quote from his speeches repeatedly. Quoting back at him precisely what he said is the strongest part of my case. I appreciate that in the light of the Minister’s explanation every other Member of your Lordships’ House may be completely clear, but there is one Member who is certainly not clear. As I understand it, the Minister has accepted that the case he referred to—that of a person who never got up in his life before noon might classify learning to read and write as a punishment and therefore a requirement to take a course developing reading and writing skills being put in a community order—could be regarded as a punishment under the terms of this Bill. I think that is what the Minister said when he responded to that specific question. Perhaps he would confirm that.
Lord McNally
Yes. The noble Lord seems to be having difficulty. Yes, if the person turns up and learns to read and write, that is a good bargain. We are trying to get rid of the community sentence that suggests that someone clears up rubbish, but after two days he does not turn up and nobody follows it up. The only thing that happens—as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, in the last debate—is that the offender takes the orange jacket to wear as a fashion item at the Saturday night dance. It is that contempt for community sentencing that we are trying to get rid of, but I have no trouble with the illustration that the noble Lord gives, as long as the punishment or the purpose is followed through. The noble Lord knows the problem of illiteracy. If we can build into community sentencing a real sentence with teeth which makes particularly young offenders learn to read and write, it could be a turning point in their lives. The noble Lord does not set me any kind of difficult question by asking for that clarification, as long as the community sentence is effective.
Lord Rosser
The Minister is confusing two things. We are dealing with part of the schedule that refers to a requirement that would be regarded as a punishment. It has been defined elsewhere as, for example, a curfew, unpaid work or an exclusion. The Minister has now agreed—and it is presumably now on the record—that this could be extended to include the case of somebody given a requirement to learn to read and write, and that that could be regarded as a punishment. What the noble Lord then went on to say has nothing whatever to do with the part of the schedule that we are discussing, but with his concerns about people given a punishment. He quoted unpaid work, because he referred to picking up litter or something. That is unpaid work, which is defined as a punishment even in the noble Lord’s definition. However, making sure that it is carried out is totally different from what we are talking about in this part of the schedule. So I do not know why the noble Lord brought that in as an answer to my point.
He says that sentencers will have a degree of flexibility. If that is the case, why did he not accept the earlier amendments to change the word “exceptional”, in one case to “particular” and in another to “specified”? He would not move on that, yet now says, for example, that the kind of programme he referred to could be regarded as a punishment. I do not know why he is not prepared to accept Amendment 9 because it says,
“a punishment requirement may include”,
and it refers to “an accredited programme”. Of course, the answer is that the key thing the Minister has not budged on when he seeks to say that the sentencers will have discretion, is that 95% of cases will be regarded as the norm and will have the punishment element. The Minister will still put on a limit and say that only 5% should be regarded as exceptional. If he was prepared to accept Amendment 9, he would remove any doubt about that and back up his statement that a court may be able to take a view that a community order—for example, a requirement to take a course developing reading and writing skills—was sufficient and could be regarded as a punishment.
However, the guidance that the courts will get on sentencing from the pre-sentence report will be based on what the Government, through NOMS, want to tell the probation service. Clearly the probation service will be told that only in exceptional circumstances can a community order not recommend unpaid work, a curfew or an exclusion. To come back to what the Minister quoted, the ability of a court to decide on a community order that requires developing reading and writing skills is going to be very limited, despite what the Minister said about the sentencers having discretion. The significance of the fact that the Minister was not prepared to accept either amendment to change the guidelines to “particular” or “specified” gave the game away.
The Minister wants it both ways. He wants to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that accredited programmes could be regarded as a punishment and give the impression that sentencers will have a lot of discretion, when we know that they will not. On the other hand, he wants to make sure that exceptional circumstances really are very exceptional indeed. I have been asked to decide whether to withdraw the amendment. Of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(2C) Before including any requirement falling within subsection (2A), the court must consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the requirement is compatible with any requirement imposed or which it determines shall be imposed pursuant to subsection (1).”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 10. This can be brief, because I think the Minister has already pretty much given me what I sought. Amendment 7 provides that before any of the new requirements are included in an order, the court must consider whether it is compatible with other requirements that it is thinking about imposing as part of a community order. I took this from Section 177(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to which the Minister has already referred, and I think he has given me the acknowledgment I want. However, he will understand that I want to ensure that the punitive element is compatible with other elements of the sentence and does not undermine or negate them. As I have indicated, one might argue the same about the rehabilitative elements, but I am focused on the punitive.
Amendment 10 refers to the provision in the Coroners and Justice Act about sentencing guidelines. Section 120 provides for sentencing guidelines about certain matters and makes special arrangements for the guidelines that fall within, I think, subsection (3), including publication in draft of the guidelines and consultation, with specific consultees. In this amendment, I seek to add these new elements to that rather short list. I tabled this amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Linklater before seeing the Minister’s letter following our previous debate on the Bill. I understand that he intends to explore the sentencing guidelines with the Sentencing Council, which probably gives me as much as I can expect at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I had a witty response for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but it will have to wait. My best responses usually come about halfway home when I think, “Damn”.
This group of amendments looks at how the provisions relating to a mandatory punitive element will sit alongside existing features of the sentencing framework. Amendment 7 would require courts to consider, before imposing an element that meets the purpose of punishing an offender, whether that requirement is compatible with any other requirement that the court wishes to impose as part of the overall community order. I am happy to give an assurance that it is not the Government’s intention that these provisions result in a combination of community order requirements that are manifestly unsuitable for addressing the causes of an individual’s offending. It is clearly right that where a court imposes two or more requirements in combination, those requirements should complement each other rather than cut across each other.
That is why the Government propose to retain Section 148(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides that the “requirement or requirements” imposed as part of a community order should be those that are, in the court’s opinion, “most suitable for” that offender. I should make it clear that, as a result of these provisions, this requirement would in future be subject to the duty to impose a punitive element. However, that does not change the fact that the courts, having decided on a punitive element, will still have to ensure that, if it is combined with another requirement, that combination is the most suitable for the offender before them.
I would also draw noble Lords’ attention to Section 177(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires courts to consider, when imposing two or more community order requirements, whether they are “compatible with each other” given the circumstances of the case. Again, the Government do not intend to change that requirement. I believe that, taken together, the existing framework already provides the safeguards that my noble friend is seeking.
Amendment 10 would place an explicit duty on the Sentencing Council to prepare sentencing guidelines for courts on the execution of their duty to impose a punitive element within or alongside a community order. I fully understand the intent behind this amendment. Since its creation in 2010, the Sentencing Council has played a vital and valuable role in supporting effective and consistent sentencing by the courts. While the council is of course independent, the Government are committed to exploring with it whether the provisions in this Bill will require changes to existing sentencing guidelines. For example, the council has an existing guideline on sentencing powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, including community orders. The current guidelines include material defining low, medium and high intensity levels of community order.
While this and other guidelines clearly provide important guidance to the courts, I would not wish the council’s existing, wide-ranging powers to issue sentencing guidelines to become too unwieldy or complex. The current power to issue guidelines has the twin virtues of simplicity and flexibility, while allowing the Government to request that the council considers issuing guidelines on a particular topic. I am happy to make a commitment to my noble friend that the Government will discuss this and other provisions in the Bill with the Sentencing Council. I hope that, on the basis of these assurances, my noble friend will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I certainly shall. I read Hansard afterwards, so I will read what the Minister said to make sure that it was as good as it sounded. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I shall speak also to Amendment 13. The purpose of Amendment 12 is to insert the phrase “meet the needs of the victims” to make it clear that the aim of the restorative justice requirement being imposed by the court is to include both victim and offender equally, which is after all the point of restorative justice. The amendment seeks to keep the needs of the victim at the centre of the process, where they belong.
It is a very welcome move by the Government that this part of the Bill makes formal provision for restorative justice to take place in this country. These provisions allow for the court to defer sentencing following a guilty plea for a restorative justice conference to take place, when all the necessary conditions are present. Of course, this may not always be the case. For example, all potential participants may not be sure that this is what they really want and they may need more time. However, the principle is being allowed for that restorative justice to be an integral part of the sentencing process and subsequent outcomes.
It has been said, rightly, that this is the biggest development for restorative justice since legislation introducing referral order panels happened in 1999, when those panels were set up to offer RJ to young, first-time low-level offenders via the YOTs. The principle is that when a court chooses a restorative approach, it is made clear that all concerned are involved in the process. This is good practice and is at the heart of what restorative conferencing is about: what the circumstances of the crime were both from the offender’s point of view and what it has meant to the victim. It involves developing a realisation by both parties of how and why the event occurred and what it meant to all concerned, both at the time and later. This then has a bearing on decisions of how amends can be made. It is extremely important that the offender gains an insight of exactly how much pain and trouble has been inflicted and that the victim can describe and explain this in a personal way. That can be extremely surprising to the offender, who has often not considered for a moment the outcome of his actions. At the same time, this can be a great help to the victim in coming to terms with the event and moving on in their life. I have sat in on restorative conferences and seen such processes at work. They are truly remarkable.
This amendment seeks to ensure that a restorative conference is a totally inclusive exercise, which is the essence of RJ. Indeed, it underlines the Government’s oft-repeated objective of focusing more on the needs of victims than in the past. There are huge challenges ahead to establish the framework, skills, understanding, acceptance and confidence of all concerned in the realisation of this plan, not to speak of the costs. It remains incumbent on the Government to spell out in much more detail exactly what their plans are in all these areas.
Amendment 13 involves deleting “Imposition” and substituting “Administration”. This follows on logically from my earlier argument; namely, that a restorative requirement should be administered and not imposed by the court. Indeed, the fact that the Government are using words in the Bill such as “Imposition” in this context demonstrates that they, too, have some way to go in understanding what RJ is really all about. This involves proper planning and can take time. It is essential that the participants in a restorative process have consented to do so, and that it has not been imposed or forced in any way. The practical reality is that this may take some time and may not always be possible before a court hearing or before a guilty plea has been entered. Some victims may not have been contacted or they may not be sure that this is what they want and need time to think, particularly if they do not know in advance whether there will be a guilty plea. There are also the practicalities of contacting others who may be involved as secondary victims of the crime, such as family members or supporters. Finally, there is the preparatory work with all the participants. Therefore, importantly, this amendment allows for a deferral period when all this work can be carried out to ensure that the best outcomes of the process can be realised.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I welcome the widespread support restorative justice has received across both Houses. Through this Bill, Her Majesty’s Government aim to empower victims by giving them an opportunity to be heard, and also to ensure that offenders understand the impact of their actions on others and, more importantly perhaps, to motivate them to change. We seem to be in agreement that we should be working towards encouraging restorative justice to be used more widely—a sentiment that I know echoes across this House as well as the other place— not as a replacement to, but in parallel with, existing sentencing powers.
As we have heard from my noble friend Lady Linklater, Amendment 12 adds an explicit reference to the needs of the victim to our definition of restorative justice requirements, which is a sentiment I strongly relate to. The Government are aware that restorative justice can be very beneficial to victims, and our research in pilots demonstrates that 85% of victims participating in direct restorative justice conferencing with their offenders were satisfied, so we entirely agree that restorative justice, when used appropriately, can—most importantly—meet the needs of victims.
Therefore, I cannot argue with this point, and if my noble friend Lady Linklater is willing to withdraw Amendment 12, I will consider it in advance of Report and return to this subject at that time. I am sure that my noble friend will understand that I cannot give an explicit undertaking at this stage to bring forward a government amendment but, as I have said, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the points she has strongly made.
On Amendment 13, I hope that it is fair to say that, as my noble friend acknowledged, we are at a turning point in relation to restorative justice. The Government are attempting to take a victim-led approach to restorative justice and to move away from the offender-led process. We are also making sure that the victim is aware of, and considers, restorative justice as an option much earlier in the process.
This amendment would allow the court to defer sentencing for restorative justice even when the agreement of all the parties, including the victim, has not been obtained. This is despite agreement being necessary for the activity to take place. The Government take the view that it is important that the victim is able to consider and decide whether to give his or her consent before the court defers sentence. We are therefore not convinced that a court would want to defer sentencing unless everyone was signed up to it, as this could ultimately lead to lengthy delays, which are in no one’s interest. We must also remember that additional delays can result in increased costs.
In addition to concerns that the amendment could increase court time, we need to consider the impact on the victim of deferring a sentence. This is about the victim. In many cases, the victim will want speedy justice and closure, if for nothing else than in order to put the whole episode behind them. Any victim of crime shares that sentiment. I wonder whether deferment without the victim’s agreement could look as if restorative justice was being imposed on the victim in the sense that, “We’ve already delayed the court case for you, so you may well wish to consent”.
As I said earlier, I welcome the strong support for restorative justice from across the House and particularly thank my noble friend Lady Linklater for tabling her amendments. Support for the victim is vital, and I totally align myself with that sentiment. In light of the points I have made and my commitment further to consider Amendment 12, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Linklater would withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am glad that, overall, he has accepted my arguments. I shall have to read Hansard carefully and perhaps ask a few more questions about deferral because it is a new element of reticence that I was not expecting. I am therefore likely to want to come back to this subject, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Part 2AProvision for female offenders7A (1) Contracts made by the Secretary of State with probation trusts shall require each probation trust to make appropriate provision for the delivery of services to female offenders.
(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) shall include provision for women to carry out unpaid work and participate in programmes designed to change offending behaviour in groups consisting only of women.”
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I will speak about making provision for women—“female offenders”, as the Bill calls them. These new clauses are intended to make good the remarkable lack of reference in this Bill to women who offend, which is for me and many others impossible to understand. They also echo the thinking and recommendations of the Corston report, which were accepted five years ago by the previous Government and were generally welcomed around the country. Like many of my colleagues and friends in the House, I earnestly wish that some moves can now be made to address these issues which are so long overdue.
New Section 1ZA(7A)(1), to be inserted into the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 under Amendment 14, simply affirms that:
“Contracts made by the Secretary of State with probation trusts shall require each probation trust to make appropriate provision for the delivery of services to female offenders”,
because it is now generally understood that existing provision, whether in prison or in the community, has been—and still is—largely designed for men. Therefore, it is totally unsuitable for women, as should be absolutely self-evident. Women’s needs are quite different from men’s and the provision must be different.
Jean Corston recommended that there should be separate, specially tailored services locally available, so that the disruption to family life, particularly to children, is minimised as far as is humanly possible. It is self-evident that the needs of the children and families of women who have offended have a huge bearing on their capacity to attend programmes, for programmes to be effective and for reoffending to be reduced. It also has a crucial impact on the risk of orders being breached.
Women’s needs are extremely complex and need correspondingly tailored and appropriate responses. As we heard in a previous debate, most such women are the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, which demands quite different skill sets on the part of the providers of services from those required for men. Currently, we simply do not have adequate provision throughout the country to meet the extent of this need. Therefore, we are failing these very vulnerable women. We are also failing our society’s needs and the needs of the many children involved.
Of course, there are probation trusts which make provision for women in their patch. I have visited some remarkably effective and impressive initiatives where women’s centres are turning lives around. I have visited centres where the women themselves are instrumental in making this happen through the understanding and support that they give each other, as well as the skill and sensitive work done by the probation services concerned. But the probation services are not required to do this: hence, the need for this amendment.
The recent joint inspection report on the use of alternatives to custody for women offenders reported a lack of women-specific provision for unpaid work and offending behaviour programmes. However, it said that women-only provision, where available, is often very successful. I know this to be true and have met women who have continued to visit their centre long past the end of their required attendance to help other women who are still under an order.
The second part of this amendment follows on from what I have just said. It states that each probation trust should be able,
“to carry out unpaid work”,
in women-only groups, as well as any offending behaviour work, such as drug and alcohol addiction programmes or domestic violence programmes. For the one or two women in an otherwise male group doing unpaid work, it is likely to be extremely threatening, intimidating and unproductive, and quite likely to end up with the order being breached. Tragically, that is likely to result in a custodial sentence. Indeed, a striking feature of the female prison population is the high proportion of women in prison for breaching a court order—an order originally imposed for an offence that might never have attracted a custodial sentence in the first place. That is a tragic irony.
I hope that the Minister will take this away and look at this serious omission in the Bill. It is not too late to rectify it and, in so doing, he would attract support and heartfelt relief the length and breadth of this land. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 14, to which I have added my name, I shall speak also to Amendment 20, which noble Lords will note has virtually the same wording as Amendment 14 and for the same reasons. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has made abundantly clear, the needs of women as regards community sentences in particular are currently not being satisfied. Indeed, we are still waiting for the Government’s paper on strategic priorities for women, which we have been expecting for some time.
In his answers to the debate we had on 30 October, the Minister mentioned that there had been success with young offenders. In fact, for young offenders, one has to read “children” because the success has been with the under-18s, led by the Youth Justice Board. There is then a gap, which is variously described as being those between 18 and 21 or 18 and 25. That debate has been raging for ages. It means that there is a gap in the provision for people of a very vulnerable age who are in transition to adulthood. I must commend to the House the remarkable work done by the alliance which has the name Transition to Adulthood. I shall mention in particular two documents published by the alliance. One is called Pathways from Crime: Ten steps to a more effective approach for young adults in the criminal justice process. The other is Going for Gold, which was published last week. It has a bronze, silver and gold approach to community sentencing, which I commend to the Government.
In commenting on community sentences, Pathways from Crime recommends:
“The few existing examples of young adult specific community interventions that exist across the country should be replicated nationally, and similar effective interventions should be available to all sentencers when sentencing a young adult”.
I say “hear, hear” to that. I admit that I was slightly, I hope, confused when in an answer on 30 May the Minister hinted that instead of young adult community sentences being handed to the probation service to administer, they were going to be handed to local authorities. I am worried about that because one of the recent successes in this neglected area, as the House has heard many times, is the intensive alternatives to custody programme. It has been piloted in Manchester, South Yorkshire, London and other places, and was very valuably evaluated by Matrix Knowledge, which proved the value that the programme presented in terms of preventing reoffending.
The probation service has neglected this group for too long, although now, having tasted success with these programmes, it is very anxious to get into the game. I believe it is very important that, instead of leaving provision for this group up to individual local authorities, it should be made clearly the responsibility of the probation service so that intensive alternatives to custody and other programmes can be developed nationally and, therefore, have some hope of consistency.
I am very glad that the subject has been studied with such assiduity by Transition to Adulthood because, in its work, it is filling in a great gap which has existed for too long. On 25 July, the Minister told me that there was going to be a commissioning strategy for young adults from the Ministry of Justice, which we still await. However, I hope that by raising the issue at this stage two very important gaps—women and young adults—can be properly looked after in the community sentencing arrangements, which the Government say in Schedule 16 they intend to introduce.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I will be very brief. I support both the amendments. They are vital and I hope that they will be adopted fully by the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, has said, it is an extraordinary situation, after all the reports that there have been over the years, that still no special arrangements have been made for women offenders. We know that so many of them have suffered. Around half the women in prison have suffered domestic violence and one in three has been sexually abused. Most of them entering custody have committed non-violent offences. I remember going around a women’s unit some time ago where a radio and television station had been set up and they were being trained to be interviewers as well as the technicians on it. I was asked quite deliberately why I thought it was that women got more severe sentences than men who had committed equivalent crimes. I did not have much of an answer at that stage, but when I checked on it I found that what they said was very accurate. They were being penalised much more strongly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made a very important point about the children affected by this. It is absurd to break up families, particularly those that consist of just mothers and children. Quite often the fathers fall by the wayside when the mother goes in to prison. It is not just the break-up of the home that is traumatic—the home is often repossessed—but there is also the effect on the children of suddenly losing their mother and perhaps having to go into care. That is quite unnecessary if working together with the mother and the family can produce the best answer. I am quite certain that in the right circumstances it can.
I believe that Amendment 20, spoken to so effectively by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, is also crucial. We know that the cycle of deprivation concentrates on that particular group that comes in and out of prison, and so many of them are in that young age group. We are told that some of the reasons for this may well be that a lot of facilities available for children begin to fade away—the Prison Reform Trust has done an excellent briefing on all of this—and yet these children still have time to mature into adults and do not go through that transition until full adulthood which is reached at the age of about 22.
I hope that some of the experiments that have been reported on will be taken to heart. You have to have both the experienced and the expert there to help the young. Finding jobs or training is crucial if they are to be given an alternative to going back into the cycle. As well as the help of professionals, back-up with things such as HomeStart and people who know how to be supportive within a family are crucial for getting the young offender back on the right path. As we have heard already, there are experiments that have worked. Let us please ask the Government to back them. I am sure that they have exactly the same interests as we all have in this direction, so it is just a question of making certain that we get the right facilities and the right framework to enable this to happen.
Lord Rosser
I will be very brief and say that we support the thrust of what has been said. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply, particularly if the Minister feels unable to accept the amendments.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been an important debate. It is four-square with two instincts that I had when I came in to this job two and a half years ago and they have been reinforced by all the experiences that I have had over the past 30 months. The first relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that women are different and need a different response from our criminal justice system. The other relates to the age group of young adult offenders—whether it is 18 to 21 or 18 to 25. Not only is that the age of a transition to adulthood; it can also be a transition to a lifetime in crime. It has struck me time and again that if only we could extend some of the lessons that we have learnt from the treatment of young offenders under the age of 18 into that age group, we might be able to have a similar impact.
One thing that is encouraging concerns my right honourable friend Chris Grayling, the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. I have been impressed by the freshness of his thinking in some of these areas. It may be that, like me, he has the benefit of not being a lawyer and comes to it with a certain action-this-day, can-do approach. One thing I will accept that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to earlier. I will propose to the Lord Chancellor that he comes to this end of the building and that we have a meeting. I think that it will be to our mutual benefit.
On the point about women, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I make the point that women now have a new champion in the Ministry of Justice, Helen Grant MP. While Helen has been working her way into the job, it has caused a slight delay in the publication of the women’s strategy. She is entirely comfortable with the content and direction. As for when it will be ready, I am not sure which of the civil servants’ euphemisms I am allowed to use—before Christmas, shortly, in December—but work is well under way and she is taking a close and personal interest. I think that it will be greatly to the advantage of the priority that women are given within the Ministry of Justice that Helen is now in place. I also emphasise that, in developing that women’s strategy, we build on the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and the template that she laid down. As with the previous Administration, there is a difficulty with resources in some of our ambitions, but that does not take away from the fact that we are looking at a real and effective strategy, building on the Corston proposals and taking them forward.
Likewise, young adult offenders are a very important group, and if we are going to succeed in a rehabilitation revolution it is in that group that we have to find our success. We must explore ideas to get effective programmes for them. I thank my noble friend Lady Linklater and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for drawing the Committee’s attention to these important issues. This Government share their belief that it is important that the criminal justice system is properly responsive to the needs of female and young adult offenders. If we are successfully to rehabilitate both groups of offenders, it is important that we take into account the different profiles of women and young adult offenders, including the factors associated with their offending.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I am very grateful to have heard such a positive response from my noble friend and to hear him indeed affirm that women are different. I also thought interesting, although it was a slightly tangential point, the suggestion that we should extent the reach of the YJB to young adult women because they are indeed, in many respects, still children. I have to say that I have 40 year-old children, and I still call them children.
I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The intensive alternatives to custody, which I have seen at work, are fantastically effective and should definitely be extended. I am very keen on the work of T2A as well. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s suggestion of a meeting with Chris Grayling. I think we would welcome that enormously. I, too, have written to him and got no response. But I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have no problem in that department. I am aware of Helen Grant being a good ally as a woman with responsibility at the other end.
Worryingly but not unexpectedly, allusion was made to resources. The argument about resourcing is that, of course, especially in this field and especially with the range of vulnerable people involved tangentially—that is, children and wider families when women are concerned—money spent at the right end can have a huge ripple effect when it is spent on issues facing women who may not go into custody but who certainly have to carry out a community sentence. If that is badly handled, it really can affect their lives. Money spent early is money well spent and saves a very great deal in terms of the quality, expectations and prospects of people’s lives, particularly the lives of children.
I still did not hear any response to my suggestion that probation trusts should be required to make appropriate provision and be appropriately funded for doing so, but for the moment I am happy to thank my noble friend once again for his positive response. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
In moving Amendment 15, I will speak also to Amendment 16. Again, I hope to be brief.
This takes us to the provisions about electronic monitoring, the first of which provides in new Section 215A(1) that there should be a code of practice relating to the processing—I stress “processing”—of
“data gathered in the course of … monitoring … offenders under electronic monitoring requirements”.
My amendment would extend this code to the use of data. I hope that it is pretty obvious what that is about. Processing is a mechanical matter. The use of data is how you apply what you have discovered. That takes us into civil liberties areas. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this is something more than processing and that we can find a way to cover it.
Amendment 16 provides for consultation in preparing a code. The Secretary of State will have the obligation to issue the code. I remember that in the Protection of Freedoms Act there was provision for consultation by the Secretary of State in developing a code of practice relating to camera surveillance systems. This amendment is very closely based on that provision. I have listed a number of post-holders and organisations that will have a particular point of view on what needs to be considered when electronic monitoring is to be a part of a disposal.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, told us that he would have to leave. I say in his absence that I am extremely flattered that he has added his name to a piece of my drafting.
Lord Clinton-Davis
If the Minister were prepared to give an assurance that consultation will be wide and effectively encompass all the organisations that are listed, would that be satisfactory?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about each of the organisations. It will not take very much more of the Committee’s time. I do not know whether the noble Lord was trying to save time.
NOMS and the probation service will have views about the impact of monitoring on individual offenders who, as we know, are likely to have very different characteristics. The Lord Chief Justice has a responsibility for the work of sentencers and therefore will, I am sure, wish to make comments to the Secretary of State about how sentencers will use this tool. The police, as the law enforcers, will have a view and the Information Commissioner and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner have important civil liberties obligations and responsibilities. I will listen to what the Minister has to say and I hope to receive some assurances but it is important to put on record why I have chosen this list of candidates, together with, as I say,
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As regards the list in Amendment 16, the probation service represents a very important element in the consultation and the setting up of the code. It is clear that supervision is appropriate only when it is coupled with other requirements, particularly probation support. In fact, it is a great mistake for electronic monitoring to be used without proper contact being established with a probation officer. That increases breach rates by 58% and higher levels of reoffending by 21%. You cannot just leave this matter to a bit of technology. It is very important that those who have direct contact with young, or not so young, people in this situation also have the support of people in the probation service who can add their skills and advice to this process.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 15 and 16. I noted with some amusement that my noble friend Lady Linklater said that her children were in their forties, which made me feel like a mere child on the Front Bench.
Amendments 15 and 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee relate to the duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice regarding the processing of data gathered under an electronic monitoring requirement imposed for either the purpose of monitoring compliance or monitoring whereabouts in short tracking offenders.
As my noble friend said, Amendment 15 is intended to extend the scope of the code of practice to include the use of data as well as the processing of data. In fact, the code itself would be designed to ensure such use meets the principles and obligations set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 for the processing of such data. “Processing” is defined in Section 1(1) of that Act to include the “obtaining, recording or holding” of data, including, among other things, the
“use of the information or data”.
To add the words “use of” to this provision could call into question the breadth of “processing” in relation to the code and could have the effect of narrowing the requirement, which I am sure is not the intention of my noble friend.
The code will undoubtedly cover the use of data obtained under this provision. It will fully and clearly set out the expectations, safeguards and broad responsibilities for the collection, retention, and sharing of data. For example, we envisage that the code will set out the circumstances in which it may be permissible to share data with the police to assist with crime detection.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, correctly pre-empted what I am going to say on Amendment 16. I am always astonished by the great wisdom in this House. Indeed, I can give the assurance that the Government fully recognise the need to consult all stakeholders during the development of the code. Accordingly, the Government intend to consult the Information Commissioner as well as all the other interested parties listed in the amendment to ensure that the framework for processing such data is transparent and lawful while being of value to organisations that are going to use it at an operational level. In the interests of simplicity and flexibility, and given the Government’s undertaking to consult key parties, I feel that this amendment is not needed. Therefore, I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend on both counts and that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not do my homework adequately on the first of the amendments and I am grateful for the clarification. On the second of the amendments, will the noble Lord repeat what the Government will consult on? Although he said that the Government would consult these organisations, I was not sure that that extended to the point I made about the impact on offenders; in other words, pulling this into the whole package of taking us forward on the rehabilitative route. Towards the end of his response, the noble Lord explained what the consultation would be.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government will consult on the full content of the code of practice. My noble friend listed several organisations, including the police and the Information Commissioner. All those listed in the amendment will form part of the consultation.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 17 is a small but significant amendment and I am going to be told that the word “wants” is defined somewhere else. We now go into provisions about the disclosure of information. The amendment is to the paragraph allowing for further disclosure, once it has been disclosed through the first few parts of paragraph 27, to another relevant person, which is of course defined,
“who wants social security information or finances information”.
I suggest that “wants” is a very wide term. I can want something but I do not need it. We all know children who “need” sweeties or whatever, but they do not really: they want them. An official could want information because it makes life that much easier. “Requires” would be the proper term here. There should be an appropriate, underlying—I am struggling for a synonym —need, underlying requirement, necessity or something very close to necessity. It should not just make life a bit easier for the person who is asking for it. One might almost have referred, “to another relevant person who asks for it”. That would certainly have been too wide and “wants” is quite close to that. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, when I read the amendment I thought it absolutely appropriate to use the word that has been supplied. I very much hope that the Government will accept “requires” instead of “wants”.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 18 and 19 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 18 concerns information disclosed to a court, under the same paragraph—paragraph 27 of Schedule 16—as my noble friend’s earlier amendment; it relates to social security information and information to be disclosed by HMRC relating to a defendant’s finances. In both cases, the information is disclosed to assist the court in inquiring into the defendant’s financial circumstances. Sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) of paragraph 27 limit the purposes for which the disclosure is to be made and used—broadly for the purpose of assisting the court in dealing with the offender, with a general prohibition on further and wider disclosure. So far, that all seems entirely appropriate, but sub-paragraph (7)(b) appears to allow such information to be disclosed much more widely and outside the ambit of the proceedings before the court concerning the defendant, provided only that the information is summarised—what is sometimes called “gisted”—and anonymised by framing it in such a way that the defendant is not identified. That allows disclosure of social security and HMRC information relating to the finances of the offender for purposes other than his sentencing which was the purpose for which the information was originally obtained from the government bodies concerned.
What is the point of sub-paragraph (7)(b)? If there is a point to this collection of information, is this Bill and is this Schedule the place for its introduction? If we are to widen powers to obtain and use information in this gisted and anonymised form, then provisions authorising that should form part of a Bill concerning the collection of such information and not be added by a side wind in this way to a schedule which concerns sentencing and information required to assist the court with that sentencing.
Amendment 19 would ensure that, where social security or financial information about a defendant is obtained from the relevant government departments, the defendant must be shown that information and be told to whom it has been disclosed. It is fundamental that a defendant, about whom confidential financial information is obtained from government in connection with proceedings against him, should be entitled, as of right, to see that information to enable him to challenge and explain it, to know the information upon which the court is asked to act and also to know the identity of anyone to whom it has been disclosed. The paragraph, as drafted, permits such disclosure to him, or at least it does not prohibit it, by sub-paragraph (7)(a), but it does not require it and it should.
Will the Minister consider accepting the amendments or at least take them away and come back with amendments to the same effect?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to provisions in Part 6 of Schedule 16 that enable the sharing of data between government departments for the purpose of setting fines and other financial penalties. My noble friend referred to definitions and what is where I will attempt in my response to Amendment 17 to make clear that, at each stage of the process, access to the data we refer to will be limited to only those with appropriate authority and a genuine need to see the data for the purposes of assisting a court that may wish to see it for sentencing purposes.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the use of the word “wants” in paragraph 27 of Schedule 16. This is intended to ensure consistency with subsections (1), (2) and (3)(a) of Clause 22. We have not used such words as “requires” or “needs” in the Bill because, technically, the court neither requires nor needs access to information held by the Department for Work and Pensions or HMRC. The information in question could be obtained by other means; for example, by requiring the defendant to provide details of their own financial circumstances. The relevant person “wants” the information because it comes directly from the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC and this is the most reliable way of giving the court the accurate information about the defendant’s financial circumstances. It may arise that financial circumstances have changed. There will always be provisions within such proceedings to allow someone in such a situation to be allowed to present an up-to-date position of their financial circumstances.
Turning to Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I can confirm that Part 6 of Schedule 16 allows for the disclosure of financial information obtained under these provisions in a summary format. Nevertheless, paragraph 27(7)(b) only allows for the publication of financial information if it is in anonymised form. I remind the Committee that under paragraph 28, the publication of any financial information without lawful authority is a criminal offence, punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.
The purpose of allowing the publication of summarised financial information obtained under this provision is to allow anonymised financial information to be shared for the purposes of research and statistical analysis. This information will be invaluable in helping to identify trends in the criminal justice system and the financial circumstances of offenders.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, of course I will not press my amendments. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point about the defendant’s entitlement to see the information. I accept my noble friend’s assurances that it is the intention of the Government that the information will be disclosed, but there is absolutely no reason why such a provision should not be in the legislation, rather than the current, rather negative, lack of a provision that exists at the moment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, again, I assure my noble friend that the defendant would know of any such use of data. If any legal representative of the defendant wished to access that data, they would also be made available. I hope that we can clarify any other outstanding issues either before or on Report.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it might be useful if at some point we could have a discussion whereby we can understand precisely what all the steps are. Like my noble friend Lord Marks, I am clear about the assurances that have been given, but I am not clear to what extent they are within the wording of the schedule and, even having listened to the Minister, how much they need to be there.
As regards Amendment 17, I will look at the references to the other provisions to which he pointed me when he said that there was a need for consistency. I understand that that is important so as not to suggest there is no difference in provision. I might need to ask him if he would be good enough to spend a little time with me, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Marks, to go through the steps in detail. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
“Part 6AProvision for young adult offenders28A (1) Contracts made by the Secretary of State with probation trusts shall require each probation trust to make appropriate provision for the delivery of services to young adult offenders.
(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) shall include provision for services which provide support and rehabilitation appropriate to the level of maturity of young adult offenders and which increases the likelihood of compliance with community orders.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph “young adult offender” means a person who is aged at least 18 but under 21 when convicted.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has asked me to say that he will of course carefully read Hansard and the Minister’s reply but, at this stage, he does not wish to move the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Part 8Reorganisation of the National Probation Service1 The Offender Management Act 2007 is amended as follows.
2 After section 15, insert—
“15A Power to reorganise the National Probation Service
(1) Any plans to reorganise the Probation Service for England and Wales must be instituted by regulations.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of each House of Parliament.””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Government to say rather more about their intentions for the future of the probation service, given that an effective and properly resourced probation service will be crucial to delivering the Government’s intentions on community sentencing, which we are discussing, and the decisions of the courts. The Minister also referred to the probation service in our debate on community sentencing on 30 October. The amendment states that any plans to reorganise the probation service must be instituted by regulations, and that those regulations shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.
We know that the Minister is a great admirer of the probation service. He told us on 30 October that:
“I am a lifelong admirer of the probation service and am in awe of the responsibilities that our probation officers take on. I cannot imagine that any future structure would not draw on the experience and ethos that makes it such an excellent service”.—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 549.]
On the face of it, that could be taken to mean that the probation service as we know it today has a long-term future, particularly if it is the Government’s intention to raise the profile, importance and extent of rehabilitation as the means of reducing reoffending. On the other hand, the noble Lord’s words could mean very little.
He said that he could not imagine that any future structure would not draw on the experience and ethos that make it such an excellent service. What exactly did the Minister mean when he said that? One interpretation could be that the Government are nevertheless still looking to hand over to outside contractors large parts of the work currently undertaken by the probation service, and that the experience and ethos to which the Minister referred would be drawn upon because he would expect significant numbers of existing probation staff to be transferred over to those contractors. Is that an interpretation of the Minister’s comments that he would either accept as accurate or not be prepared to exclude?
He said that he was,
“in awe of the responsibilities that our probation officers take on”.
Yet, as I understand it, the Government have indicated that 60% of probation work will be put out to competitive tender. What then were the responsibilities that the Minister had in mind when he said that, and how many of those responsibilities is it the Government’s intention that the probation service should continue to undertake? Is it all of them, as presumably it should be, bearing in mind that the noble Lord is “in awe” and regards the probation service as an excellent service, and that its work will continue to be undertaken by probation officers in the years ahead?
Are the Government looking to reorganise the probation service and, if so, with what objective in mind, and in what way? If the probation service is already excellent, as the Minister told us last month, what improvements in the service do the Government believe can be achieved without potentially putting at risk the quality of the excellent service currently being provided?
We definitely do not want to see any attempt to reduce significantly or change the role of the probation service without Parliament being fully aware of what is going on, without the opportunity for a full debate—with Ministers having to justify their proposals to Parliament—and without Parliament having to agree to those changes. The new Secretary of State seems to believe implicitly in the private sector’s ability to do just about everything better than the public sector, and he is likely to try and outsource as much as he can work that is currently undertaken by the probation service. If that is not the case, the Minister has only to stand up and give a cast-iron guarantee that the probation service will continue to undertake its current activities within the public sector.
The Minister could also say how many staff are in the probation service at the present time and how many the Government envisage there will be in the future, taking account of their proposals in the Bill on community sentencing and their declared intentions on restorative justice and on the role of rehabilitation in reducing reoffending. We will listen to the Minister’s response and the words that he chooses to use—and the ones that he chooses not to use—with interest. I hope that his response will be consistent with the effusive words he used about the probation service in his response to our debate on 30 October. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Linklater has already put on record today, for the umpteenth time in this Chamber, our admiration for the work done by the probation service. I hope that is a fair summary. I will not take up the Committee’s time by repeating that or picking up the points of acclamation made by the noble Lord. I simply want to ask him a question. His amendment would insert a provision for the affirmative resolution procedure in the 2007 Act. The significance of the date of that will not be lost on the Committee. In other words, that legislation existed before the last general election. I was hoping to understand, from his introduction of this amendment, why, as that legislation allowed for plans to reorganise the probation service—I understand that must be so from his own amendment—there was no provision included at the time for the affirmative resolution procedure. I make it clear that my question is for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord McNally
I do not know whether I am flattered or worried about the assiduity—a world that seems to be creeping into these debates—with which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reads my speeches. It is more worrying when speeches of a few years back are quoted back at one and it is perhaps even worse when someone reminds one that most of the powers that we will need to reorganise the probation service were included in the 2007 Act, which, as my noble friend has pointed out, was enacted under the previous Administration.
I would like to help the noble Lord further but he is well aware that we are looking at the probation service in parallel with the other reforms that we are bringing forward. The aim of our reforms will become clear. Noble Lords will know that the provision of the probation service in England and Wales is at present under review. Earlier this year the Government published a wide-ranging consultation paper, Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services, setting out proposals for the future direction of probation. The Government are carefully considering the way forward in the light of the comments received and the Government’s wider approach to reforming the justice system.
A key part of these reforms will be delivering a rehabilitation revolution that reduces reoffending rates and therefore better protects the public. The Government want to see offenders, both after release from prison and on community sentences, given the support that they need to keep them on the right track, rather than simply returning to crime. The Prime Minister has made it clear that this will be an ambitious programme, using payment by results across rehabilitation services to harness a range of expertise and to strengthen our focus on outcomes. We are clear that there will continue to be a critical role for the public sector probation service as part of a reformed system. The Government are aiming to set out a vision for the future system over the next few weeks. We will want to engage with probation staff, representative groups and all those who can make a contribution to this important work.
In light of these points, I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would agree to withdraw his amendment. Work is under way; consultations are under way; and at the appropriate time we will bring forward proposals which, inevitably and quite rightly, will be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses.
Lord Rosser
I think the Minister has answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have not heard much since the conclusion of the consultation. The Minister has made it clear that there will be a reformed system and, by saying that the Government’s ideas will be around in the next few weeks, he has indicated that your Lordships’ House will not be able to discuss the Government’s proposals on community sentencing in the light of the Government’s intention for the future of the probation service. If that is wrong and if the Minister is telling us that on Report we will know what the Government’s intentions are for the future of the probation service, I will be very happy to give way so that he can tell us that fact. He does not seem to be too keen to stand at the Dispatch Box to confirm that that information will be available for us on Report.
It is with considerable suspicion that we view this Government’s intentions for the probation service. There is clearly a move to outsource more activities. The Minister has not taken the opportunity that I have given him to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell me that I have got it all wrong and that that is not what the Government are thinking of doing. That is the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord McNally
For the record, we are considering how to give effect to those parts of the Offender Management Act 2007 that open up provision of the probation service to a wider range of providers. In doing that, we will, of course, take a sensible and measured approach to any proposals introducing competition for offender management. Protection of the public will continue to be our top priority as we design our reforms.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would not say that the noble Lord was interrupted but an explanation has been given by the Minister. I did not expect the Minister to answer my question because it was not a question for him. It was a question about why the previous Government provided for the sort of reorganisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, but did not provide for the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure he would have said, as I have, that one needs to ensure that all legislation is proof against succeeding and different governments. The noble Lord was not part of it so perhaps I am teasing him unnecessarily.
Lord Rosser
It was not our intention to do to the probation service what one suspects that this Government are contemplating doing to the probation service. Certainly, nothing that the Minister has just said will have allayed any fears or concerns about the Government’s future intentions for the probation service. We tabled an amendment to ensure that the matter is fully discussed and debated in both Houses and to point out that it requires an affirmative resolution procedure.
I am not surprised that the Minister has declined to answer any of the points that I have put forward in asking him about the Government’s intentions. He has effectively remained silent, which must add considerably to the worries and suspicion about what is intended, particularly since the consultation ended a while ago. However, I realise that I cannot force the Minister to say anything in response to questions that I ask. Therefore, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 22 is a very low-key and minor introduction to this important new schedule about deferred prosecution agreements. It deals with the provision of certain persons to be designated as prosecutors who can enter into deferred prosecution agreements. Paragraph 3(2) states:
“A designated prosecutor must exercise personally the power to enter into a DPA”.
If I split an infinitive, it was because I was quoting. Paragraph 3(3) states that,
“if the designated prosecutor is unavailable, the power … may be exercised personally by a person authorised … by the designated prosecutor”.
This is a probing amendment. I seek to understand what is meant by “unavailable”. I assume that it would mean something more than “unavailable because he has gone to the dentist that afternoon”, and would mean unavailable because he or she is having long-term treatment for a medical problem that keeps them away from the office and away from work. The amendment specifies that the unavailability should be,
“for a period of or likely to be of more than 21 days”.
I am by no means wedded to that. As I said, this is a probing amendment, because “unavailable” could be read as meaning a very brief period where it would not be appropriate for power to be delegated. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Baroness raised a perfectly fair and reasonable point, to which no doubt the Minister will be able to reply. Looking again at paragraph 3, it strikes me that perhaps there are one or two other questions to ask. Paragraph 3(1) states that the prosecutor is designated by an order made by the Secretary of State. That is a very high-level appointment. It is emphasised by paragraph 3(2), which states that the designated prosecutor,
“must exercise personally the power to enter into a DPA”.
Again, it follows that this is a serious responsibility for somebody appointed at the highest level relevant to that appointment.
It would appear that the person then has a delegated power, in the circumstances which no doubt the Minister will elucidate of his or her unavailability, to appoint somebody else. There does not seem to be any procedure for that person necessarily to be one of a group approved in advance by the Secretary of State. It may be that a sort of panel system is envisaged, but that is not clear in the Bill. Presumably anybody could be designated—in theory they could be relatively junior—by the original designated prosecutor to carry out this very responsible work.
This thought had not occurred to me until the noble Baroness opened up the issue. However, it strikes me as a matter that the Minister should take back and look at. I would envisage that a panel system would apply, but surely it would be sensible to specify that that would be the case, rather than leave an untrammelled decision to the designated prosecutor in circumstances where he or she is not available to do the job. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will take that back and look at it, in order to answer both problems that we have identified this evening.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, perhaps I can come back on this. The point is reinforced by the fact that designation under paragraph 3(1)(c) is subject to the affirmative procedure under Clause 30.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving her amendment. When devising the new process for deferred prosecution agreements for England and Wales, the Government sought to ensure that it aligned with key strengths and aspects of the existing criminal justice system. To that end, we provided for decision-making throughout the process to be properly guided, including by the code of practice for prosecutors, and overseen by the judiciary.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides that the decision to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with an organisation should be exercised personally by designated prosecutors, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. This is to ensure that there is prosecutorial oversight of each DPA at the highest level. It mirrors existing requirements for such oversight, including, for example, decisions to bring proceedings under the Bribery Act 2010. Offences under the Bribery Act 2010 are among the economic and financial offences for which we propose DPAs. This process should be available, as detailed in Part 2 of Schedule 17.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked what would occur when the relevant director, whom we hope in each case will make the decision personally, is not available. In order that due process can continue without delay, we have provided the power for the relevant director, if they are going to be unavailable, to designate another prosecutor to exercise the oversight and decision-making functions. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether they could assign this power to anyone. I suggest that someone who is qualified and in such a senior role will assign it to an appropriate prosecutor in their relevant area.
Consistent with similar powers for personal decisions by directors, such as those under the Bribery Act 2010, we have not sought to constrain the ability to delegate the power to enter into a DPA. We are not contemplating large numbers of deferred prosecution agreements each year, and are confident that the directors are fully committed to making decisions personally, as envisaged, and would designate another person to do so only in exceptional circumstances and with good reason—and, I will add, would designate only an appropriate person.
I consider it important in the interests of openness and consistency that DPAs should align as closely as possible with existing and established law, and with the processes of our criminal justice system. That is what we have sought to achieve in paragraph 3, and indeed throughout Schedule 17. I therefore hope that with this explanation my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not quite addressed the issue. There is nothing in the Bill that would require the substitute prosecutor to be a designated prosecutor; they could be anybody nominated by the original designated prosecutor. I again invite the Minister to take this back and have a look at it. It seems—and I think that the noble Baroness agrees with me—that there is a lacuna here that needs to be filled.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, of course I will look in any direction that the noble Lord points me to in considering consistency with other legislation. I think that what we are being asked to do is to rely on the good sense, and good sense of responsibility, of those who hold the posts specified in paragraph 3(1)(c). I understand that and take the point seriously but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, at least some further thought is required in order that we can be confident that enough constraint is in place. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
EU Report: Women on Boards
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Cathain
Baroness O’Cathain to ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Report of the European Union Committee on Women on Boards (5th Report, HL Paper 58), what is their position on proposed EU action to increase gender diversity on boards.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, this is a time when we are making history. The report of the European Union Committee on Women on Boards was published last Friday and we are debating it tonight, which is two working days. This is excellent, of course, but it gives no time whatever for a government response. We hope that they will give one in due course and we look forward to that.
Gender equality has long been one of the core objectives of the European Union. The treaty on the functioning of the European Union is clear that,
“in all its activities the Union shall seek to eliminate inequalities and to promote equality between men and women”.
There has been important legislation, including the 2004 gender directive, which insists that there should be equal treatment of women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services, and the 2006 directive on equal opportunities for men and women in the workplace.
Since 2010 this objective has been vigorously pursued by the vice-president of the Commission, Viviane Reding, and in this country by a number of business leaders, spurred on by the 2011 inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, at the request of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
The Commission action so far has included in September 2010 the strategy for equality between women and men; and in March 2011 European companies were invited to sign the “Women on the Board Pledge for Europe”, which required that companies should commit to raising female representation on their boards to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020. UK action so far has been the Davies report, to which I have already referred, which underscored the benefits of having more gender-diverse boards. The Government have largely accepted the findings of the Davies report but have rejected the ideas of quotas at the EU level.
Sub-Committee B undertook this inquiry because of the topicality and the importance of the issue, its place within the committee’s scrutiny remit and the expected directive from the Commission imposing quotas for women on boards. This proposal was initially expected on 23 October but was postponed. We now expect the directive to be put forward by the Commission tomorrow. So if that is not topical, what is? A leak appearing in FT.com today confirms that the Commission is widely expected to propose some form of quota for 40% of women on boards in plcs within the EU by 2020.
In asking this Question, I thank everyone who has contributed both written and oral evidence to our inquiry; and the members of the sub-committee who worked so hard to produce this report, four of whom are taking part in this debate. I thank them particularly. I also thank our clerks, Mark Davis and Nicola Mason; the policy analysts, Paul Dowling and Sarah Watts; and our committee assistant, Elaine Morgan.
There is a strong case for action in this area. As already noted, gender equality is already a key EU objective. Viviane Reding has made this a priority. The committee found merit in this work to encourage greater female board membership and urges the Government to continue to support the Commission as well as pioneering their own initiatives.
We observed the significant benefits derived from a more diverse board. These include better reflecting the perspectives of customers; challenging established thinking—or “group think” as we are now supposed to refer it; female board members can serve as role models for women within and outside organisations; and the need for fairness and equality of opportunity—for example, in the UK, women make up 45% of the labour force and 60% of graduates, yet only 17% of board positions are held by women in the FTSE 100. In the Cranfield study it was stated that there are 2,500 “board ready women”—that sounds a bit like “chicken ready”. However, we are not convinced by the evidence which has been put forward for a direct link between gender diversity and increased business profitability and would discourage the promotion of such claims in the absence of further and more conclusive research.
On quotas, the Commission is well placed to encourage member states to act in this area. Article 157(3) TFEU allows the EU to adopt legislation aimed at ensuring equal opportunities. However, voluntary progress at the level of member states has been slow. This was the Commission’s key argument for the suggestion that quotas should be imposed. It takes as one example the adoption of quotas in France, where a 40% quota for female board directors is imposed at a national level. However, based on the wealth of evidence the committee received, we considered that similar legislative action from the EU at this level would be inappropriate for four key reasons.
First, to impose EU-wide legislation would jeopardise self-regulatory efforts and the current positive engagement from industry in countries like the UK where businesses are strongly opposed to quotas. Secondly, there is a possible argument that this would undermine the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity being the case, the EU should act only if the proposed action cannot be achieved by the member states at national and regional level. Thirdly, positive non-legislative efforts are already being made in the UK. Fourthly, any legislation which induces quotas is best imposed at national level, and this is already being done in France and Italy.
Quotas would achieve statistical change but neglect the underlying causes and risk fostering the incorrect perception that women on boards were not there by merit—for example, 89% of the 2,600 women who responded to the consultation of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposed quotas. Quotas would not address the lack of a sustainable and consistent “pipeline” of women through businesses and onto boards, according to the National Association of Pension Funds.
While in the long-term progress has been disappointingly slow, female representation on boards has increased exponentially in recent years. In 2011-12, we saw female board membership increase by 3.1%, the largest reported increase at FTSE 100 level. Indeed, when I look back at my experience when I had my first FTSE 100 board appointment in 1984, I was one of six women in the whole of the FTSE 100 who had a board appointment. So we have made progress. In March to September 2012, 44% of new board appointments were female.
As to the experience of other countries, which is often quoted, Norway introduced a quota of 40% women board directors in 2003, with a deadline of 2008 for publicly traded companies. The 30% club pointed to the low number of women in executive positions in Norway as a lack of the effectiveness of quotas. Despite 44% of board members being female, only 8% of Norway’s CEOs are female.
Barnali Choudhury, a lecturer in corporate law at Queen Mary College, London, highlighted the disputes surrounding the practicality of quotas despite its strong culture of quotas. She therefore suggested that a one-size-fits-all solution around Europe would be deeply flawed given the variance of such cultural factors.
Too little time has elapsed to assess the impact of quotas on other EU countries such as France and Italy, where legislation is less than two years old. However, it is notable that, despite having quotas in France, the French Administration agree that EU action should begin with non-legislative measures.
Henry-Labordère, Counsellor for Labour Affairs at the French Embassy, was keen to see co-ordination at a European level but believed that a “graduated approach” of “reasonable voluntarism” was the most appropriate first step. We investigated and suggest other measures, including monitoring progress. A number of witnesses suggested that more effective monitoring in the areas of gender diversity of board members could go some way to solving the problems that this report seeks to address. However, witnesses were divided on the best means of performance monitoring. Witnesses also highlighted the merits of voluntary initiative, such as the “comply or explain” element in the voluntary code of conduct which was launched in July 2011. This is significant as it was drawn up by the search firms sector, which has a prominent role in the appointment of board members.
In conclusion, we acknowledge that progress in this area is needed, but that it should be business-led, enabling a sustainable supply of women to move up the “pipeline” and into board positions. Therefore, the imposition of quotas at EU level should be resisted, since they would negate the engagement and goodwill shown by businesses in recent years. The Commission has a role to play in fostering this voluntary approach and should focus on highlighting best practice in the area. While it is beyond our remit, we note also that developing a sustainable supply of female talent may also require broader cultural reform of working practices. As such, we welcome the broad focus at both national and EU level on these wider issues. This is the most important recommendation.
Baroness Ford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain for securing this incredibly topical debate. In the 1980s, she was the Chief Executive of the Milk Marketing Board, then a very important national organisation. She was a powerful role model for many of us who followed her in business. The European Union Committee has delivered a very thoughtful and practical report on this issue. Its preference, and that in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is for companies initially to have some time to deal with this issue rather than immediately impose quotas. I believe that they are right in this as things are now changing very rapidly. When I was first appointed to the board of a private company 20 years ago, it was something of a novelty. The usual excuse for not having diversity in boards was that not enough experienced women were available. Even if it was true then, which I doubt, it is nonsense now. A whole generation of women have had successful executive careers and form a huge pool of talent available to fill board positions.
However, we need to embed these changes and make sure that they stick. The question is how best to do that. In the minute remaining, I want to say that one thing strikes me as particularly important. We must continue to exert pressure on companies whose boardrooms are still one-dimensional and also on those search firms whose research is particularly weak in this area. We must embed diversity in mainstream corporate governance in line with the UK code. I am absolutely sure that this is the best way to proceed. At the moment, companies show their range of professional advisers in their annual report—their brokers, their auditors, their lawyers—but they do not show their search firms. It would be hugely revealing to have this information made public. I welcome the changes proposed by the Financial Reporting Council in this regard. I believe that it will demonstrate, as lots of us know from our own experience, that certain search firms, as well as certain companies, are much better than others at thinking laterally and behaving inclusively. If the last few years have shown us anything about institutions and organisations in this country, it is that the very best way to effect change is through transparency.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to Commissioner Reding. We have seen the value of strong leadership when it is shown in this country, as it is here by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Vince Cable. Article 2 of the EU treaty clearly gives a competence in equalities issues and the Commission is quite right to look at the question of women on boards in this regard. While the position of women in the boardroom in countries such the UK and Norway has undoubtedly improved, it is very poor elsewhere in the European Union. For me, one of the most persuasive parts of the evidence we heard was the reminder that the current situation is such a waste both of talent and of the public investment in the education of women if they find their way is barred. Our report therefore sets out some of the ways in which the EU can take action—for example, through monitoring, collection of data, exchange of best practice with the business sector and executive search firms—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done here. I believe that naming and shaming companies who are laggards can be very powerful, particularly if shareholders exert their power.
While I am not against quotas per se, I have serious reservations about them for all the reasons we have just heard. If they were imposed at EU level, it would be difficult to find a quota which would reflect the very different rates of participation across the Union. If a quota were set too high, it would be impossible for some states to reach; if it were set too low, it could actually set women back in other countries. If Government lose that argument and EU quotas are the outcome, I would advise them to negotiate for percentage increases rather than a one-size-fits-all. For me, it is a matter of practical subsidiarity. Whether or not to have quotas and how they should be used is a matter for member states.
Lord Patten
My Lords, I should declare an interest—not mine but my wife’s, now in her twentieth year of uninterrupted service on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. From time to time, as your Lordships might imagine, her ladyship has occasionally favoured me with her views on this subject across the Chinese duvet that quite properly separates our business interests. That said, these are my views, not her ladyship’s. First, I give strong support to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and her committee. Secondly, I certainly want more well-qualified women on boards. Thirdly, I agree with the general tenor of the remarks made recently by Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts when she said on 9 November in response to a question about quotas:
“Just put the best person into the job. It is not about gender, it is about experience, leadership and vision”.
Miss Ahrendts then very generously went on to observe,
“A man could do this job”.
Two of the best quota-free ways of encouraging more women directors are, first, for companies always to remember that women striving for the top make choices not sacrifices. They are not victims as they strive to struggle and juggle family, children and work. Secondly, improving company working practices, styles and rhythms to accommodate this juggling by women has a lot to do with companies’ success. The best companies, the crack companies, have already started this—Amazon, Apple and, indeed Burberry. One can go from A to Z through the list of major companies. It is one of the best non-discriminatory ways of helping more women up the executive leader, itself one of the best routes into non-executive directorships as it happens. It also helps to build better companies.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain has explained, a proposal by Commissioner Reding that there should be a mandatory 40% of women on boards has been legally challenged so fresh proposals are imminent. I add my thanks to our clerk Mark Davis and the team who drafted this report in double quick time so that we can contribute to the debate.
We are convinced that the objective of greater gender balance is right but we have tried to respect and understand the different ways that each member state conducts its corporate affairs. We call for a 30% target before a mandatory 30% quota is enforced. As we explained in box 2, and as the noble Baroness reminded us, the legal basis for gender equality is already in place. Indeed, some member states already have quotas and we list these in Table 1 of our paper. The House is therefore entitled to ask why we should bother. There are practical reasons. First, we think that 30% is the right number. Secondly, during my time in business, I observed that firms got into trouble when they ceased to serve society in order to serve themselves. The banking industry is only the latest example and one way to avoid this, and to keep up with the changes in society, is through diversity. Women are 50% of the society that we serve.
As we point out in our report, one way in which to increase the potential pool of women—and, incidentally, benefit from their knowledge and experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, reminded us—is to look outside the usual networks. The public sector, the voluntary sector or the women scientists’ concordat. All this is far better than the golf club. I also think that our ambitions must go further than the FTSE 100 companies and should perhaps include all firms in the FTSE 250. I strongly support the EU initiative. It is right to call for penalties, but only as a last resort if the target of 30% is not achieved.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, in 2003 I was a member of the Tyson Task Force on the Recruitment and Development of Non-Executive Directors, where we examined,
“how a range of different backgrounds and experiences among board members can enhance board effectiveness and by exploring how a broader range of non-executive directors can be … recruited”.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for initiating this debate and I am relieved to see that the EU Committee’s report is emphatically against imposing quotas. There are two issues here: how can we continue to encourage UK plc to have the most effective boards, and secondly, how can we ensure that UK plc pursues equality of opportunity? It is not just about doing things right, but about doing the right thing because it makes sense.
Apart from chairing the Cobra Beer Partnership Ltd and Molson Coors Cobra in India, for the past five years I have been a non-executive director and the senior independent director of the Booker Group plc, a FTSE 250 company. When I first joined the board five years ago, there were no women, but that situation has changed. I am proud to say that we have a very effective board that has seen the company’s value increase virtually five times in five years. What is key is finding the best individuals for the board with diverse skill sets, backgrounds and experience that are as relevant to your business as possible, and increasingly that should include international experience. It is the responsibility of the chair to search as widely as possible to find these individuals, as well as the responsibility of headhunters. Although it is good news that more than 50% of FTSE 250 companies now have at least one woman on their boards, we could do so much more. As was said earlier, the Cranfield University School of Management, of which I am a proud alumnus, in its 2012 Female FTSE Board Report identifies more than 2,500 women who are ready and capable of taking on board positions.
We need to persist in encouraging and highlighting the benefits of diverse boards, and in particular having more women on boards. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is doing this in the same way as the Cranfield University School of Management report, and in the way that the EU Committee’s report is doing it. Jennifer Harris, the managing director of Board Intelligence, wrote last year that:
“Boards make important decisions and diverse boards might make better ones”.
From my experience, I have seen that they definitely do. I shall conclude by saying that we need look no further than your Lordships’ House. I would go so far as to say that this is the most expert and the most diverse upper House in the world. We did not need quotas to achieve this; we have done it because it makes us more effective, and because it simply makes sense.
Baroness Miller of Hendon
My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Cathain on having secured this short and most important debate. I have only served on the board of one commercial public organisation, the Crown Agents, and I therefore do not have the same experience as does my noble friend following her very distinguished career in the world of high-powered finance. However, I do have the experience of being involved in the very long campaign to get more women into Parliament, as an early founder and later the director of the 300 Group, and I was also deeply involved in the campaign for more women to receive appointments to public bodies. That campaign has been partially successful as regards the other place and even in your Lordships’ House, and progress continues to be made—although only slowly as regards appointments to public bodies and the senior Civil Service.
The one thing that the two campaigns have in common is that women do not want to be refused appointments to company boards simply because they are women, but equally they do not want to be appointed only because they are women. They do not wish to be the token woman on the board to make it look good. Neither of those actions is in the interests of the shareholders. It is true, as the former Equalities Minister, the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, is reported as saying in today’s Daily Telegraph, that having children—and worse still, the possibility that they may do so—is an impediment to some women’s careers. But still I am hopeful, if not confident, that women are on the edge of a breakthrough—it sounds as though they might very well be—and that they will simultaneously shatter the glass ceiling and put an end to the malign influence of the old boys’ network. Given that so many men have spoken in this debate, I hope that they will forgive me for that one little remark.
I hope that today’s debate will come to the attention of shareholders, especially the institutional shareholders of public companies, and that they will use their influence to ensure that the vast talent of 50% of the population is put to its fullest and best use. That is all I want to say other than to look to my noble friend and thank her once again for having called for this most interesting debate, one that has encouraged so many gentlemen to speak so well about our sex.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, unlike other noble Lords who are speaking in this debate, I am a strong supporter of obligatory quota systems for gender equality, and certainly at the national level. They create a platform for advance that no other approach can rival. We have a lot of evidence on this. Voluntary approaches by and large do not work, no matter how ambitious they are. After more than a century of struggle for women’s rights, 86.5% of board members in the EU are still men—that is almost 90% after such a long period. That shows that we are dealing with very deeply embedded forces. Radicalism of all sorts is required on the issue, not only for reasons of social justice but because of the need to tap an unused reservoir of human capital. We owe the EU Commissioner, Viviane Reding, a debt of gratitude for putting the issue so forcefully on to the EU 2020 agenda, even if her original proposals do not look as though they will go through.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, what plans do the Government have not just to implement the recommendations of the Davies report but to go beyond it, especially to introduce some form of sanction? Without sanctioning mechanisms, we are not going to get near the targets. Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree that only those countries that have introduced enforced quota systems have made fast and substantial progress? We know the famous case of Norway, but in a whole string of other countries there has been a dramatic change in the course of even a year or two after the introduction of such legislation.
Lord Smith of Clifton
My Lords, the situation is not improving. In the past year there has been a reduction in the number of female FTSE 100 CEOs from four to two. The recent reshuffle has seen a reduction in the number of women Cabinet Ministers. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, job for job, women are paid £400,000 less over their working lives than their male counterparts. They also receive less than half the average amount in bonuses than men in the same positions, and women directors are twice as likely to be made redundant. Increases of women directors in FTSE 100 companies have invariably been in the non-executive category. Among the FTSE 250 firms, the situation regarding women directors remains dire. Some 94 out of the FTSE 250 companies have no female board members.
The Government remain opposed to quotas, preferring to encourage a voluntary code. “Nudging” is not effective, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has just said. Both major companies and the Cabinet will fail to meet the 25% female participation targets by 2015, as set by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Mandatory quotas merit the most serious consideration.
I am saddened by the number of women who, against all the odds, have achieved commendably high positions in the corporate world but nevertheless decry the introduction of quotas. They seem to feel they have to be more macho than the boys, who self-servingly reject quotas. The fact is that these protestations fly in the face of the evidence: quotas do work, and not just in Norway. Within the UK quotas have worked very well. Following the Patten report, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was required to apply quotas over a 10-year period to improve the recruitment of Roman Catholics. The target was achieved well before the 10 years had passed and, what is equally significant, it led to a marked increase in the recruitment of women from both communities, up from 12.6% to 26%. That is a fact, and will the Minister in winding up the debate please confirm that?
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I ask the Government to reflect on the themes in the European Union Committee report in the context of the boards and committees that provide governance in the specific sector of sport and recreation in the United Kingdom.
Last week in your Lordships’ House, I called for an end to the ban on women members in certain golf clubs, including the Royal and Ancient in St Andrews. Today I broaden the theme to focus on the wider role of women in British sport administration. Maria Miller, as Secretary of State in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, also has responsibility for women in society, and I urge her to address this issue as a priority. Where are the women sports editors? Why are women so underrepresented on the boards of British sport’s governing bodies?
Following the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, which so vividly demonstrated the impact of girl power, the number of women on the international sports federations and the International Olympic Committee—with its 118 men and 24 women, a ratio reflected on many of our governing bodies of sport—falls short of where we should be in the 21st century. As the Times editorial on 27 October stated:
“There are not many sports whose governing structure would withstand the pressure of scandal. The governance of sport is one of the few institutions where the disinfectant of scrutiny has not yet been applied”.
I call on the Secretary of State to initiate an inquiry into why women are so underrepresented in the running of British sport. These are golden days for British sports men and women, able-bodied and disabled. It is time that the role of women in the administration of British sport was afforded the priority it deserves. The fact that governing bodies are overwhelmingly funded by the quangos that operate through government appointments, as well as the influence of Whitehall, makes this an area in which the Government can take action. I urge the Secretary of State to do so now.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, the strong arguments for broad female membership of company boards has been very powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I will focus on the areas of legality with regard to the proposals that have been made, or may be made, by the European Commission, and the question of competence with regard to this area of legislation. We heard reports in late October that the EU legal service challenged the Commission over the legality of strict quotas being imposed on publicly quoted companies. The report suggested that it would be impossible under current EU treaties to impose quotas or to apply strict sanctions to companies that failed to meet those quotas.
During this investigation, your Lordships’ European Sub-Committee B also covered the area of competence with regard to the EU in this area. Legal advice available to the committee indicated that the EU was indeed competent to act in this area, but evidence received by the Minister, Jo Swinson, giving oral evidence on 15 October, indicated very clearly the view of Her Majesty’s Government that the EU did not have competence in this area. I have two questions for the Government. When entering negotiations once these proposals are finally presented, will their position be that the European Union is or is not competent to proceed in this area? Secondly, do they consider the imposition of quotas legal or illegal under European law?
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Cathain on her report and on this debate. I support getting more women on boards but I want to achieve that through merit not discrimination. The effort to get women on long lists is fine, but that is where discrimination should end. The debate often equates diversity, which is a good thing on boards, with more women. This is wrong. Female board members are not automatically more diverse than their male counterparts. Concentrating on gender diversity risks losing sight of what real diversity can contribute to board success. The report is brave to say that the economic case for more women on boards has not been made. The enthusiasts have confused correlation with causation, and I hope that Ministers, including my noble friend on the Front Bench this evening, will stick to the evidence in future and not make assertions about improved performance and productivity.
I believe that focusing on the proportion of board membership achieves diversity box-ticking without achieving sustainable change. Because the proportion of executives on boards has declined from around one-half to around one-third over the past 10 years, the focus has therefore been on non-executive appointments. However, in my view the debate needs to shift decisively towards the much more difficult issue of women executives. Why is it that management boards still look unbalanced? Why are the women who are there are often in functional roles rather than general management ones? This is partly about working practices, as the report suggests, but also about culture—as the report also suggests—and the hidden barriers in workplaces and the implicit assumptions about career patterns. These are not areas that board percentages can tackle.
Lastly, I cannot support even a reserve right of Brussels to legislate on quotas. The report should have used a little more Anglo-Saxon directness in telling the Commission where it should put its quotas.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for all she has done to advance this cause. Arriving at a more equitable situation between men and women on boards is ultimately desirable. However, it depends on being able to recruit women of real ability. It must be done within a limited time and satisfy the requirements of all the members of the EU. I have no doubt that to impose quotas at this stage would be a mistake. Some member states prefer legislation while some combine both. Others, such as ourselves, prefer a voluntary approach.
But what if insufficient progress is made? The sub-committee said that the voluntary approach must be given a fair time to work. That is entirely right, but at the end of the day, if it does not work, quotas should be applied. Two issues are absolutely vital. First, the EU should preferably act in concert. Secondly, there is no place for backsliders.
Lord Freeman
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Cathain on this very interesting and important debate. I will share with your Lordships my limited experience over the past 15 years in the private sector.
Mandatory quotas in France, where I have served on a major company board, have been accepted and work. In Norway, quotas have been working, to the best of my knowledge, for five to six years now. However, I do not believe in mandatory quotas applying to the United Kingdom at this stage, for a number of reasons. The excellent and energetic work of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, in trying to encourage professional services firms, particularly the big accounting firms and the merchant banks in the City, to recruit more women to the board seems to working. If that does not work, I withhold judgment as to whether there should be legislation, although I am not in favour of that at present.
The public sector has got a major example to set in encouraging more women to stand for or apply for positions, whether that is on the advisory boards of different departments or serving in the other parts of the public sector. We have not done enough, and Ministers should take responsibility for what I call the “pull”. As far as internal promotion is concerned, within management below boards, that is where we are failing and I very much agree with my noble friend’s comments just now. We are seeing a glass ceiling, certainly in professional firms, which is nothing to do with women deciding to leave to have families and come back later on. It is important that they are regarded as qualified candidates to rise right to the top. However, at the moment, I am not in favour of legislation in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was worried that she would not be able to be here to make the points that he so adequately made, so I am sure that she will be extremely pleased by his remarks. He was quite right. I wondered how I could possibly squeeze any of those sporting remarks into my two minutes.
Lack of women on boards is a waste of talent and potential. It is a terrible waste of talent and potential right now. I congratulate the committee on its work, although it is a shame that it set its sights against quotas so completely. It is also a shame that the newly appointed Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Miller, instead of taking a positive stance on this matter, as most noble Lords have done, chose to attack the Labour Party as being obsessed with quotas. We have not said very much recently about them. Instead of celebrating successes achieved and talking about how to make progress, she decided instead to have a go. That is a great shame.
My understanding of what is to come out of Europe in the next 24 hours or so is that member states already taking action will be exempt from quotas if they get up to 40% of non-execs by 2020. That is eight years away. Does the Minister think it possible for the UK, with the progress that we have made so far, to reach 40% by 2020? We should be able to.
I am proud that Labour took action to ensure that women are better represented in Parliament and politics, for example. We now have more women than all the other parties in Parliament put together. That does not mean that there is not a long way to go. How will the Government put their own house in order on these matters? I draw attention to research published in Sunday’s papers, secured by my honourable friend Luciana Berger MP. It is about government departments and their appointments at a senior level. I will share with your Lordships’ House the bottom five. BIS is the fifth bottom. It managed to recruit 25% of women in the last tranche of senior appointments that it made. Fourth from the bottom is Defra with 23.5% of women. Third from the bottom is the Department for Transport: 16.6% of its recent appointments were women. Second from the bottom is the Treasury, with 14.2%, or two out of 14, of the last senior appointments that it made being women. At the bottom is the Department of Energy and Climate Change, with one out of 15 appointments, or 6.6%. That is simply not good enough. It seems that the Government need to get their own house in order.
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that he did not rule out going further and using quotas as a way to get women into top executive jobs. This weekend, we saw the Minister for Women and Equalities say that that was absolutely out of the question. Perhaps the Minister in this House would clear up whether it is Ms Miller who is right or the Prime Minister.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, first I congratulate my noble friend Lady O’Cathain on securing this debate so swiftly after publishing the committee’s report on Friday and ensuring that it is possible for us to discuss this important issue in a timely fashion. I also congratulate all noble Lords on their contributions today. Perhaps it is a reflection of the lack of time available to noble Lords that no one else mentioned this, but I thought it striking that in this debate about women on boards we have had contributions from nine men and seven women. That is interesting in itself.
On a topic such as this, lots of statistics have been mentioned and I will mention more in the course of my response, but with the exception of the remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, it was also interesting that it was noble Lords rather than noble Baronesses who spoke in support of quotas. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, as one of those noble Lords, referred to representation in the European Parliament. It is worth noting that, in the Commission, of the 26 Commissioners 17 are men and nine are women. I am not here to speak for them, but it is none the less worth mentioning.
As my noble friend acknowledged, the Government will want to consider the report’s findings carefully and respond in detail. Our immediate reaction is that the report is thorough and comprehensive and we welcome it. I am pleased that the committee concluded that quotas are not the way forward in bringing about change and that the voluntary business-led approach that we are taking in the UK is a much more effective way of achieving long-term, sustainable change.
Noble Lords raised a wide set of issues. To respond, it is probably best to start with the Government’s position on the proposed EU action. As we all know, a proposal was put forward by Vice-President Reding in October which was not voted on. As has been mentioned, it is expected that a formal proposal will be put forward tomorrow. I will not—I am sure noble Lords would not expect me to—respond to any speculation about what might come out tomorrow, although I acknowledge, as has been mentioned, that there is a report in the FT today speculating on what might be said. Our basic position is that we welcome a discussion at the EU level about the best approaches to increase the number of women on boards. We welcome the efforts by Vice-President Reding to keep this issue high on the political agenda. We want more women on boards and in senior positions.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market was the first to raise the question of competency in the remarks today. There is a role for the European Union to ensure that good practice is shared and data are collected. There is also competency for the EU under its responsibilities to ensure equality in member states. However, we do not agree that quotas are the answer to our desired objective to have more women on boards and we will resist any effort by the European Commission or European Union to impose them. We take that position and do not support quotas because many member states have recognised the need to take action and are doing that in ways that they think best suit their own national needs. In many cases they are making progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned the success of quotas in Norway. That is right and, if it works for those in Norway, who am I to stand in their way if they think that adopting quotas is right for them? We do not think that quotas are the right approach for the UK. It is also worth noting that, while they have had success in Norway in terms of non-executive appointments, they have not had a correlation in the success of executive appointments. Because we think that member states are best placed to take action, we therefore question whether, under the principle of subsidiarity, there is a case for the Commission to impose quota legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked about that and I hope that I have been able to clarify the difference. He also referred to evidence that my honourable friend Jo Swinson gave to the committee. When she talked about competency, she was talking about the role of the EU in terms of governance arrangements on boards. As to his direct question about whether imposing quotas would be illegal, that is premature. We do not know what the Commission will propose and I would not want to set out what we might do until we know exactly what it will put forward.
We do not accept that quotas are right for the UK. Member states, like business, need to be able to respond to the changing environment and varying needs of the business community. An inflexible, one-size-fits-all quota system is not the answer. That point was also made by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. If countries decide that they want to adopt quotas, that is a matter for them. When there are different types of governance arrangements for boards in different countries, one size across all areas would not work. In this country, the majority of women are not in favour of quotas. Certainly we in the Government feel that quotas address the symptoms and not the cause of women’s progress. As mentioned by other noble Lords, women want to be appointed to senior positions based on their skills and experience, not because of their gender.
The representation of women on boards and in positions of authority in all sectors is important. At this point, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon for all her work in promoting the cause of women in Parliament. She is right to remind us that it is not just in the public sector that it is important to have women in positions of authority. This point was also made by my noble friend Lord Freeman. I take on board his point that the Government and public sector need to take the lead in this area. As to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also said about the Civil Service, clearly there needs to be progress. However, although I do not have the statistics to hand, over the last 15 years there has been quite a significant improvement in the number of women in senior roles. While I would not suggest for a moment that this progress should not continue and that more cannot and should not be done, we must not believe that when a woman moves out of a post we are taking a backward step.
As much as we believe that it is right to have women in positions of power, we need to be clear why we believe that businesses would benefit from more women in senior positions. My personal view is that women need to hear that they are wanted. We are more likely to widen the pool of talent if we can spell out to women who perhaps would not naturally put themselves forward why having them in these positions is something that we want. We agree with the findings of the committee’s report that there is no causal link between more gender diversity on boards and stronger financial performance. It is difficult to find conclusive evidence for the economic impact of increasing the number of women on corporate boards. However, the correlation between strong business performance and women’s participation in management is striking. I noted the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and his experience on the board on which he sits.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been referred to on several occasions. It is clear that the case for greater diversity hinges not only on the link with improved corporate performance, but also on ensuring that companies access the widest talent pool, are as responsive as possible to the markets that they serve and look to improve corporate governance. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain referred to other issues, including dealing with groupthink.
The Davies report is the approach that we are following here in the UK to try to improve the representation of women on boards. We believe that it is right to take the voluntary business-led strategy set out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his report. As noble Lords know, he set out 10 recommendations aimed at increasing the number of women on boards and, 18 months on, women now account for 17.3% of non-executives in the FTSE 100 and 11.3% of FTSE 250 board positions, which is real progress. There are now only eight all-male boards remaining in the FTSE 100, which is down from the 21 of 18 months ago.
The voluntary code of conduct written by the executive search firms has played a key role in the progress that we have seen in the numbers of women attaining boardroom positions. It ensures that women are treated fairly within the recruitment process. In terms of our own learning, this is certainly something that we seek to share with other member states. However, a lot more still needs to be done if we are to meet the Davies target of having 25% on FTSE 100 boards by 2015.
I will make a couple of additional points on this. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed to the suggestion in the committee’s report of a target of 30% by 2020. In response, I would say that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was very much about minimum targets. That 25% is a floor, not a ceiling. Furthermore, the noble Lord and his committee went to great lengths to set a target that was both stretching but achievable by 2015. However, that does not rule out the possibility of going further. I would certainly not want to give the impression that that would be the end of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether quotas should be used if targets do not work. He is right to ask that—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised the question. It has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and by the Prime Minister that there remains a last resort if all else fails. However, we want to pursue this voluntary approach and there is evidence that it is working. The most important thing is that if ever this country decided that it wanted to set targets, we should take that decision for ourselves and not have it imposed on us by Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked whether there would be sanctions if the 25% target was not reached. My response is that, once we start imposing sanctions, we are inevitably introducing quotas by another name.
The pace of change needs to be accelerated. What has been acknowledged is that, while we are making real progress in the non-executive ranks of boards, we need to see much greater change among the executive director roles. That was mentioned by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Freeman. Currently, women account for only 6.6% of those at executive director level of FTSE 100 companies, which is very disappointing. Addressing this issue is complex and it will take some time to see actual progress. However, the 30% Club and the Women’s Business Council—a group put together by this Government—are looking at this issue.
I went to a press launch today where the Conservative Women’s Forum announced that it would be looking into the barriers preventing more women from reaching senior executive positions. I think that we all want to understand which common barriers get in the way of allowing women to get into those senior management roles. As the Deputy Prime Minister announced today, initiatives such as greater choice around flexible working and flexible leave are issues that will have a positive effect once we are able to make progress in that area.
Because I am running out of time, I will just acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned women in board positions in sport. I will of course raise that with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I also want to make the point that transparency and monitoring are a very important part of ensuring that we make progress. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, said about seeing whether the new reporting requirements could be extended to search firms. I am not able to commit to that, but it is an interesting idea.
We will continue to work with businesses, investors, directors and chairmen to spread the word that diversity makes economic sense. Some success has been achieved, but we need to increase the pace and gain greater momentum. My noble friend Lady Miller said that women are on the edge of a breakthrough. I hope that that is the case. Certainly, boards can change, and they can and will change without regulation. If I have not been able to cover any point that has been raised today, I will write to noble Lords.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 35, 45, 46 and 47. These amendments would broadly remove the restriction of deferred prosecution agreements—DPAs—to corporate bodies, partnerships and unincorporated associations by permitting DPAs to be entered into with individuals and would instead restrict DPAs to cases where a sentence of imprisonment would not be likely on a guilty plea. The later amendments in my name, along with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would widen the offences for which DPAs might in future be permitted beyond the range of financial or economic crimes.
To put these amendments in context, I welcome the innovation represented by the introduction of DPAs into this country by this Bill for two principal reasons. First, they are an effective device to ensure that criminal behaviour—sometimes very complex criminal behaviour—is met by a sanction. The compulsory imposition of a financial penalty, which is the subject of an amendment in my name in the next group, would ensure that that was the case. They bring about a saving of trials which in this country are, and have been, notoriously uncertain of outcome, as well as extremely expensive, so that they have used up a very large part of the criminal justice system’s overall budget. Secondly, they offer an opportunity for prosecutors to agree a programme of compliance requirements with offenders, and thus offer a chance to change behaviour, so they are part of the toolkit of the rehabilitation revolution, about which we have heard so much in the context of the Bill.
DPAs are for use only in suitable cases. It is important to avoid the worst excesses of such arrangements in the United States where it has been said that they have been used as the rich man’s route to plea bargaining. I suggest that they can and should be used to achieve voluntary compliance in the future with the requirements of the law across a range of fields. The limit on that is that it should not be acceptable for DPAs to be agreed where otherwise a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate.
It follows that Amendment 23 removes the requirement that a DPA may not be agreed with an individual. In support of that amendment, I ask rhetorically the question, why the distinction? Why should it be that a criminal offence by a corporation, a partnership or an unincorporated association should be treatable by a DPA, but not an offence by an individual? As I suggested in the Second Reading debate we had in Committee, the question is not whether an offender is an organisation or an individual but whether the nature of the offence is suitable for a DPA. The distinction has been drawn that an individual can be imprisoned and an organisation cannot. But I suggest that that distinction is artificial because it is of course possible to provide that DPAs will be entered into only in cases where imprisonment would be unlikely in the case of an individual.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury suggested to me that nothing in the Bill explicitly stated that DPAs were not appropriate for an offence warranting imprisonment. The answer is that in the Bill as it stands such a provision would be unnecessary because it applies only to corporations, partnerships and unincorporated associations. But if it were extended to individuals, I suggest that it would be necessary to make it clear that it was not to be seen as an alternative to imprisonment.
I quite take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, at Second Reading, that, because of the behaviour-changing arrangements that can be made in DPAs, they might in some circumstances be suitable for drugs offences and the like which would otherwise warrant a sentence of imprisonment. At this stage at any rate, with this very new procedure, I would be wary of introducing a system that could be seen as allowing offenders effectively to buy their way out of a sentence of imprisonment.
Hence, under Amendment 35, we confine DPAs to offences not warranting such a sentence even if the limit to individuals were to be lifted. That would happen at the preliminary hearing where, on the application by a prosecutor for a declaration that a DPA might be appropriate, that would not be able to be granted were a sentence for imprisonment to be appropriate.
Amendments 45, 46 and 47 in my name and Amendment 44 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, concern the types of offences that might be made the subject of DPAs. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment would effectively allow the addition of any offence by removing the restriction to economic and financial crime. I should make it clear that my amendments are sample amendments only. They are not intended at all to be exhaustive and I have not attempted to conduct a trawl through the statute book to look for appropriate offences. They are intended to be probing and to give examples only of the way in which categories of offences might be usefully made broader.
Amendment 45 suggests that,
“a breach of regulations which is not punishable by imprisonment”,
taken at its broadest, might be an appropriate amendment. Amendment 46 deals with environmental offences under the Protection of the Environment Act. Some of those are punishable by imprisonment as well as by fines but, were the restriction to be only to those offences which would not be likely to warrant a sentence of imprisonment, that would be appropriate.
Similarly, health and safety offences seem to me—as indeed they seemed to be to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, at Second Reading—to be an appropriate area for such broadening of the offences. I have some experience from practice of the way in which the Environment Agency operates in respect of cases of environmental pollution. In fact, it has been operating for some time on the basis that it will agree not to prosecute offenders in circumstances where the offenders agree to pay compensation to clean up pollution and to put in place with the Environment Agency programmes of compliance with legal requirements for the future. That system works well and I suggest that it could be extended on a formal basis, as is suggested in the schedule, far more widely.
I ask noble Lords to support these amendments, and for the Minister to consider taking them back and doing something with them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am not getting at my noble friend because he referred to my intervention last time, but I hope that he will forgive me if I am misunderstanding this. Perhaps other noble Lords are also unsure as to the impact of the removal of the words, in paragraph 4 on page 261, line 32,
“but may not be an individual”.
Does that not mean that the only persons who may enter into a DPA with a prosecutor are the ones mentioned, namely,
“a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association”,
so the removal of the words in his amendment will not actually make any change?
I see that my noble friend has tabled Amendment 24, which does refer to individuals. However, I wonder whether that is not, so to speak, negatived by the removal of those words; but, as I said, I may well have got this wrong.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, my noble friend is, as always, entirely on the ball. My amendment is wrong in exactly the way that he mentioned. It should be “or an individual” rather than,
“but may not be an individual”.
So the words that ought to go are, “but may not be”, to be replaced by the word, “or”. For that, I apologise, and I hope that I will be allowed to alter my amendment accordingly. I am not proposing to press it in any event, but we can bring it back on Report if necessary, in a better form.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 44 standing in my name, but I want to speak to Amendment 23 as well. Before I do that, and so that I do not have to repeat this on later groupings, I want to repeat the declaration of interest that I made on 30 October at col. 575. I also want to repeat my belief that this is a very useful addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has described as the armoury for prosecutors and for law enforcement agents. I think that that is absolutely right. On 30 October, I explained how I had been thinking about this when I was in office and, indeed, I introduced at the other end of the scale of offending something that was equivalent: conditional cautions. I believe that this is worth while and I think that the former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, deserves credit for having pushed this forward. I had the benefit of talking to him about this before these amendments came forward into this Bill. So I do support them in principle. The few amendments that I have put down are designed to try to make it as workable as possible, given that the principle is there—others may take a different view about the principle—and to make it as useful as possible.
There are some technical amendments but also one or two that relate to the scope of DPAs. I want to underline the fact that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who has made this point. The important issue about a DPA is that it is not just punishment. It can become punishment, but it is about changing behaviour and about compliance. It is a carrot and stick approach.
On the point raised by Amendment 23 about whether this should be capable of being extended to individuals, I repeat what I told the Committee on the previous occasion, that it was actually in the context of individuals that I first saw the benefit of arrangements of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has referred to drug offences, and he is quite right. I saw in operation in the United States deferred prosecution agreements being used as a powerful tool to change the behaviour of people who were drug offenders and who seemed incapable of holding down a job and therefore living a life beneficial to themselves, their family and the general public. This was achieved by the combination of a strong statement that if they did not comply in particular ways—taking drug tests regularly, staying clean, following the advice of probation officers or the equivalent—they would suffer serious imprisonment, and the inducement that if they did comply, not only would they not go to prison but they would not have a conviction either. That could be very important to them in terms of getting jobs in the future. On more than one occasion, I watched judges who were speaking on a very direct basis to offenders, reminding them of their obligations and saying, “This is what you have got to go through. This is how you have to comply if you want to get the benefit of this arrangement”. So I think that this is potentially very valuable for individuals, and I ask the Government to think again.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is of course right about the technical issues on the amendment, but I think that the purpose behind it is very clear and, if the principle were accepted, I am sure that the Government would sort out the precise wording to make it work. I do not think that the noble Lord can change the amendment while on his feet.
In the same context, I turn to Amendment 44 in my name.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Does he not have a residual concern that if one allows individuals into this plea-bargaining regime it could give rise to the sort of scandal that my noble friend Lord Marks referred to of rich, powerful and well lawyered individuals escaping the opprobrium of prosecution and appearance in court that might otherwise be the way forward?
Lord Goldsmith
I am not concerned about that for this reason. There are two very powerful safeguards in the Bill that should prevent that. First, the DPA has to be agreed by a prosecutor and, as the debate on the previous amendment demonstrated, not just any old prosecutor but either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the director of the Serious Fraud Office—or, possibly, a person designated by the Secretary of State. I leave aside the locum tenens that might come in; the Minister will tell us at some point how likely that will be. First, the prosecutor has to decide whether it is appropriate. Having spent, as the Committee will know, a lot of time with prosecutors when I was in office, I had a high regard for their understanding of what the public interest and public reaction is. They know when people need to go to prison, if they are convicted, and they know when it is appropriate for them not to do so. We can rely a great deal on them to decide which cases are appropriate and which are not.
There is then a second safeguard. Under the Bill as it stands, it has to go to court twice, and the court has to be satisfied that it is appropriate and proportionate for such a step to be taken. Those safeguards mean that one can be much more relaxed about the risks to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, refers. Of course, I would entirely agree with him that if we had a situation in which the system operated only to the benefit of the rich it would be wholly unsatisfactory. That is one reason why I think that extending the ability of DPAs so that they cover the sort of offence that I have referred to and individuals would meet part of that concern. If anything, I am worried that by limiting this to economic crimes for companies and partnerships one sends the very message that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, does not want to be sent. I invite the Government to think very hard about that.
Those are the two safeguards. My personal preference would be not to add any other barriers. I would not add the barrier of the offence being likely to carry a sentence of imprisonment. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, recognised, if this was extended to cover the sort of case with which I have been concerned it would rule those cases out. I would leave it to the good sense, judgment and sense of public interest of the prosecutor and the court to limit the cases. For the same reason, I would leave the ambit of cases that could be covered open. I would not try to cherry pick through the statute book to find other offences that might be appropriate. I would leave that to the prosecutor and then to the court to say whether it was appropriate to use it for this sort of environmental offence or that sort of health and safety offence. I predict that fairly soon we will have a code giving guidance, and no doubt there will be debates in this House and in other places from time to time as well, and we will see the sort of offences that are appropriate. It is a very useful tool. Other dispositions are not normally limited in this way to particular offences, individuals or specified periods in prison. When I move my amendment, I will invite the Government to consider those points very carefully.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, at Second Reading I expressed misgivings about the introduction of this new concept which were shared by other Members of your Lordships’ House. However, it is clear that the proposal will go ahead. It is certainly possible for us to live with that and, indeed, to seek to improve the legislation on the way.
I listened with great care to the reference of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith to the desirability of extending the DPA process to individuals. However, I am still not quite persuaded about that. I certainly would like to see how the original intentions of the Bill are carried out and what effect they have on what I take to be the basic approach of the Government, whose rationale is that in serious cases, which take an inordinate amount of time and cost an inordinate amount of money to pursue, adopting this measure might achieve a swifter resolution of the problem and, as the noble and learned Lord rightly reminded us, help to pursue the desirable objective of changing behaviour. One particularly looks to that approach being applied in the corporate field. Only today we have seen across the pages of the Guardian an apparent example of the kind of corporate misconduct that could well lead to a massive investigation. One might think that that is an ideal case for the application of this new principle. However, the new principle departs from the traditions of our jurisprudence—as do other things that we shall discuss shortly, but not in connection with this Bill—and is not something to be embarked on lightly. In particular, we need to continue to bear in mind the state of public opinion as it might develop.
I quite take the point that it is not necessary or desirable to confine the scope of this new procedure to economic and financial crime, although I suspect that that is what has triggered it. I am particularly attracted by the references of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to environmental issues. I think of some of the cases that we have debated in other contexts that involved damage to the environment. Those cases can also be formidably expensive and, almost by definition, difficult to pursue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is right. We cannot list every conceivable item. There has to be an element of discretion. It would be sensible for this matter, and its extension, to be the subject of orders and therefore subject to parliamentary approval. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, probably goes too far.
I want to touch briefly on Amendment 48 in my name which seeks to establish a sunset clause. This is one of three amendments which are partly designed to reassure the public that this measure is not undertaken lightly by the Government and Parliament and that, novel as it is and potentially almost offensive as it could be to some people’s sense of justice, it will be subject to very careful review which is more extensive than the post-legislative scrutiny now available. My amendment would compel a proper parliamentary review of the whole issue if, in the light of experience, it is thought appropriate to renew the provisions. I suggest a five-year period because by definition many of these cases take a long time and it will take time to see how the new system beds down.
The Minister was not oversympathetic to that suggestion on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. However, I hope that it will be given consideration because we cannot lightly embark on this massive change, with the implication that people—corporations rather than individuals—can buy their way out of difficulty. I will return to that thought in relation to other amendments. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at some of the points that have been made, notably about the extension beyond simply economic and financial crime, and in particular at the possibility of a sunset clause as proposed in my amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Lord referred to someone buying themselves out of trouble, or whatever it may be. It is the same sort of idea that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, raised. Would the noble Lord agree that as well as a financial penalty, a DPA could well provide an obligation to comply in particular ways in future? That is not the same thing as buying your way out of trouble. It is accepting a form of conduct in future that hopefully would be beneficial to the public and everyone else and is not just a matter of pounds in your back pocket.
Lord Beecham
I am talking about public perception, which might well be less grounded in those more fundamental objectives than we might give it credit for when debating it in this environment, dominated as it is—looking around the Chamber—by lawyers. We have to carry the public with us. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is aghast: unfortunately for the legal profession, perhaps, the lawyer gene apparently did not pass from his grandfather. We have to take public perception on board and it is in that sense that I use the term.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, forgive me for speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, but I hope to add a few words to what he said because I was slow on the uptake and did not realise that the last amendment on this schedule is in this group. I endorse 100% the argumentation of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for the five-year review. I think I am alone in this House in being fiercely opposed to the whole schedule on principle. I understand the extremely persuasive arguments advanced by all who have spoken tonight—shortly to be enlarged upon by my noble friend Lord McNally—but I am profoundly concerned that we are stepping into a realm that we have no past experience of and which could work out to be far from the hopes of the Government in advancing this proposed plea-bargaining regime.
There are a number of unknowns here that could, in the event, show that, overall, Schedule 17 works against the public interest. There should be a pause after five years so that that can be looked at very clinically, impartially and clearly so that we can take stock of what is a revolutionary change in our criminal law. Let us make no bones about it: this is one of the greatest revolutions in our criminal law system in 100 years. It is not a change that has been signalled well to the public. There has been extraordinarily little comment in any of the broadsheets, magazines or television programmes. In fact, I have not seen reference to this innovation anywhere. For those reasons and many others, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accede to the amendment. After all, if the Government are right in their arguments for Schedule 17, they have nothing to fear in a five-year review.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I welcome the broad support for the introduction of DPAs. I align myself with the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about my honourable friend Edward Garnier in terms of the work he has done in this field.
My noble friend Lord McNally and I have listened very carefully to the arguments and discussions that have taken place on the amendments in front of us. I can assure your Lordships’ House that this Government are about listening and hearing about experiences. While the proposals are quite specific at the moment, this does not rule out returning in future to the extension of the remit of DPAs, particularly where issues beyond economic crime are concerned.
Lord Goldsmith
More than once in this debate it has been said that this is an entirely novel approach. I invite the noble Lord to consider the fact that we already have deferred sentences, under which judges say, “If you do certain things”—and they are supposed to say what they are—“over the next three or six months, I will take a different course”. We have suspended sentences. I have already referred to the fact that we have conditional cautions. I challenge the proposition that the Government’s proposal is so novel, and invite the noble Lord and his office to consider that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
That applies in a case that has been tried in open court and a conviction has been made. It is vastly different from the plea-bargain situation where there is no open-court hearing, no obloquy and no public shame.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. As I said in my opening comments, it is not something that the Government are entirely ruling out, but it is the Government’s view at this stage that because this is something new to our justice system, the provision would be focused on organisations. However, I hear very clearly and my ears have not been closed to the points made by the noble and learned Lord. It is a matter that we will examine at some future point in time when this particular DPA scheme is reviewed, as I am sure it will be.
Generally speaking, the law on corporate criminal liability is such that, in order to achieve a conviction, a prosecutor must show that the “directing mind and will” of the organisation satisfies the necessary fault element for the offence. This is often difficult to show, especially in increasingly large, globalised and more sophisticated organisations. Cases can often involve lengthy and protracted investigation, with associated high financial and resourcing costs, with no guarantee of success.
Our proposals will not change the law on corporate criminal liability. However, they will offer an additional route for holding to account organisations that are willing to engage in the process and might otherwise face prosecution. These issues are not present to the same extent in relation to prosecuting individuals. However, I have noted with great interest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has said about his personal experience and the experience of the United States in this regard.
Furthermore, one of the elements that the Government considered as regards prosecuting economic crime committed by organisations is perhaps not the same as that which applies to other areas such as health and safety. Therefore, an extension of the proposals to other forms of offending does not appear necessary at this time. In particular, we are not persuaded that a DPA would be the appropriate response where direct physical harm has been caused to an individual by the organisation’s wrongdoing.
As this process is new to our criminal justice system, the Government would like to tread carefully. Our view is that a narrow, targeted approach is the best course of action to begin with. As I have already assured the House, I shall keep the points raised by my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, under review. At a future time, should a case be made for applying deferred prosecution agreements to individuals, or for applying them to a broader range of offences, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has mentioned, it is right that we come back to Parliament with the necessary primary legislation to extend the scope of the scheme rather than seeking to do it through secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, spoke to Amendment 48. The Government’s view is that that amendment is unnecessary. We have already provided an undertaking that we will review the operation of the scheme following its introduction, which is of course essential given the novelty of DPAs in our criminal justice system. Returning to a point that was raised by my noble friend, the Government are in any event committed to reviewing all new primary legislation within five years of Royal Assent. That was the previous Government’s policy on post-legislative scrutiny. We do not need to put such a review on a statutory footing or to sunset the scheme provided for in the Bill. If, following the review, changes to the scheme are necessary or desirable, we can of course bring forward further primary legislation at that stage.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I have listened very closely to the compelling arguments that have been made. With the assurances that have been given to ensure that the matter is reviewed, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I hear the assurances that the Government are listening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) A DPA must impose on P a requirement to pay to the prosecutor a financial penalty broadly comparable to the fine that a court would have imposed on P on conviction for the alleged offence following a guilty plea.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 24, 25, 26 and 27. That suite of amendments has one purpose which is to make a financial penalty compulsory as a requirement of a DPA.
I suggest that there is an anomaly in the Bill as drafted. There is no compulsion to agree a financial penalty. It is one of a series of optional requirements. However, if a DPA contains a financial penalty, that penalty has to be broadly comparable to the fine that a court would impose on a plea of guilty. Therefore, the DPA has to have either no financial penalty at all or a full financial penalty comparable to the penalty that would be imposed by a court. The reason why I suggest that a financial penalty should be compulsory is to maintain public confidence in the new system and to prevent DPAs being seen as a soft option. That is particularly important if they are to be used only for economic and financial crime by corporations rather than more widely. At the moment, if a DPA can be agreed between an offender and a prosecutor without being subjected to the penalty that a court would impose, the innovation runs the risk of being tainted by the allegation that it amounts to no more than plea bargaining, the sort of suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
I entirely accept that there might have to be an exception allowed for cases of genuine inability to pay, either at the agreement stage or at the stage when a breach or possible variation is considered under paragraphs 9 and 10, or at both stages. Subject to that qualification, I suggest that a financial penalty comparable to a court fine in lieu of prosecution should be at the heart of the new arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I will make some observations about the noble Lord’s amendments in this group. I shall speak also to Amendments 28 and 29 in my name. It is worth reminding ourselves what the requirements of a DPA may be, as set out in paragraph 5(3). We have spoken as if the only requirement is likely to be a financial penalty. We talked about paying the price and buying one’s way out of trouble. However, a number of requirements may be included, not just the payment of a financial penalty. The words “financial penalty” appear in paragraph 5(3)(a). Paragraph 5(3)(b) refers to a requirement,
“to compensate victims of the alleged offence”.
Paragraph 5(3)(c) refers to a requirement,
“to donate money to a charity or other third party”.
Paragraph 5(3)(d) refers to a requirement,
“to disgorge any profits made by P from the alleged offence”—
no doubt to the person from whom they have been made, not to the prosecutor.
Paragraph 5(3)(e) refers to a requirement,
“to implement a compliance programme or make changes to an existing compliance programme relating to P’s policies or to the training of P’s employees or both”.
I wish to underline that that can be a very powerful tool for changing behaviour, but also an onerous tool. Frequently in cases where such a system exists, a monitor is required. The company then has to pay for an individual—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was such a person—who will have full access to what it is doing and whose job it will be, from inside, to see that it is complying with the programme. That can be a very powerful tool for making sure that it changes its behaviour—but, as I said, also an onerous one.
Paragraph 5(3)(f) refers to a requirement,
“to co-operate in any investigation related to the alleged offence”,
and paragraph 5(3)(g) to a requirement,
“to pay any reasonable costs”.
I invite the Government to reconsider even their proposal, whether or not they accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Possibly this is one of the more important amendments being considered tonight. I looked back at the Government’s response to the consultation on this offence. I noted from page 28 of the paper that more than half the respondents to the consultation did not agree that there should be a fixed minimum payment for a financial penalty. I wish to understand why, given that the majority of respondents took a different view, the Government have committed to this.
I am concerned about several things. First, if we impose this restriction, the DPA may be used in fewer cases, because it will become unattractive to agree to it. I recall that in a previous debate, in answer to a question from me, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, confirmed that the Government saw DPAs being used even in cases where the defendant did not admit guilt. In those circumstances, it becomes surreal to start talking about the financial penalty that would have been imposed on a defendant if they had pleaded guilty when they have not.
Secondly, the cost of the compliance programme—in terms not just of money but of obligation—can be sufficiently significant that it justifies saying, “No, you do not have to pay the same financial penalty”. I will also ask a question about financial penalties. That is why I read out the list. “Financial penalty” is only one requirement on it. I fear that by imposing this obligation, we may create a distorted view. For example, somebody may say: “What about the victims?” The answer may be: “I am afraid that I cannot afford to compensate them because you are making me pay a financial penalty which is commensurate with what I would have been fined, so there is no more money, or at least I am not giving you any more”. That is quite contrary to the principle in the criminal law that where financial measures are made, you treat the fine as the second thing, and if there is money for compensation, you try to get that paid first. I am concerned that this will have a counterintuitive and unsatisfactory effect.
I would avoid this sort of perverse incentive. I would avoid putting on the straitjacket. Of course I take the point about public confidence—although the more in this debate we invite the public not to have confidence, perhaps the more they will not have confidence. Perhaps we should start looking at this in a different way. My answer to this—as it was to the previous amendment—is that there is a double lock on a DPA in the form of the most senior prosecutors and the court. That is sufficient to ensure that what comes out of the DPA is satisfactory. I therefore do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. My Amendment 28 is designed to have the effect that the financial penalty should not be more than the fine would have been, which is obviously perfectly reasonable.
Amendment 29 deals with a somewhat different but equally important point. It seeks to change the provision in sub-paragraph (5) that a,
“DPA may include a term setting out the consequences of a failure by P to comply with any of its terms”,
and convert it to an obligation not a permission. This is on the basis that the DPA should state what will happen to you if you do not meet its terms—that is what this is all about—in the interests of both the public and the person who is on the receiving end of the DPA. It is an amendment of a different order but I invite the Government to consider it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I broadly sympathise with the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on this part of the Bill. In particular, it is important to recognise that there needs to be some incentive—this is the American experience—for potential defendants to come to terms, and the noble and learned Lord’s formulation is in line with that. However, given that the Bill refers to the penalty being broadly comparable to a sum that might be levied by way of a fine on conviction for an alleged offence following a guilty plea, there is an implicit assumption that there will be a one-third discount from what would be the fine after a conviction. That is the way in which the system appears to work, so we are perhaps not terribly far apart in any event.
I am less clear about the attraction of Amendment 26. I do not quite follow why the payment to the prosecutor of a financial penalty should be taken out of the Bill. The prosecutor is not personally going to pocket the money, I assume.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Perhaps I may help. Amendment 26 is part of a suite of amendments. Amendment 24 provides for the compulsory imposition of a requirement to pay the prosecutor a financial penalty broadly comparable to the fine a court would have imposed. The amendments can only be read together. If you have Amendment 24, you do not need paragraph (3)(a).
Lord Beecham
I will not take the time to check that. I shall accept the noble Lord’s remarks and leave it to the Minister to respond.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
On this occasion I am certain that I have got the drafting right.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
Dear, dear, dear. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Ahmad at one point referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, as his noble and learned friend. In some ways, both Front Benches are grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s interventions and draw on his experience in this area. In that spirit, I shall take another look at both of his amendments and take advice on them.
Paragraph 5 of Schedule 17 sets out both mandatory elements that every deferred prosecution agreement must include—namely, an agreed statement of facts and an expiry date—and a number of optional elements set out as a non-exhaustive list of potential terms.
As my noble friend Lord Marks has explained, Amendments 24 to 27 would require a financial penalty to be agreed and imposed in every case; whereas, under the Government’s proposals, that is a matter to be agreed by the parties depending on the particular circumstances. The Government have taken the view that, for the purposes of this approach to dealing with alleged criminal wrongdoing by organisations, there must be flexibility to deal with each case individually. As such, our intention has been, as far as possible, to limit the mandatory elements of a deferred prosecution agreement. I defer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on whether it is a wholly new approach. As he says, there are at least some areas of our law that are pathfinders for this. However, I think that it is a new approach to economic crime.
It is important to remember that this is a voluntary process and that the outcome will be an agreement between the prosecutor and an organisation, as distinct from court-imposed sanctions. It is essential, therefore, that the parties are able to negotiate terms in an individual case that are tailored to the particular type and extent of the alleged wrongdoing, as well as to the wider circumstances of the case and the organisation, including its financial circumstances. Ultimately, the package of terms will be the subject of judicial scrutiny and the judge will consider whether, taken as a whole, they are fair, reasonable and proportionate. If the judge is not of that view, he or she will not approve the agreement.
A financial penalty is just one of the potential terms of a deferred prosecution agreement, and is one of five of the suggested terms which are monetary in nature. While the illustrative terms in paragraph 5 are not listed in order of priority, it is the view of the Government that any terms of an agreement relating to compensating or making reparation to victims should take priority over the other monetary terms, including any financial penalty. Not all of the suggested monetary terms would be appropriate or desirable in all cases. In addition to, or instead of, monetary terms, an agreement may include obligations to improve corporate governance and compliance and to provide for implementation of the agreement’s terms to be monitored, the cost of which would fall on the organisation, or indeed anything else which the parties can agree is an appropriate response to the alleged wrongdoing. It will be for the parties to negotiate, and ultimately for the courts to approve, a range of terms that are fair, reasonable and proportionate. While a financial penalty is very likely to be imposed in the majority of cases, we do not consider it necessary or desirable to require a financial penalty to be agreed and imposed in every case.
Amendment 28 concerns the level of financial penalty payable under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement. Where such terms are to be included in an agreement, the sum payable should be broadly based on the fine that would have been imposed for the alleged offence on a conviction following a guilty plea. Where available, the court would follow relevant offence-specific sentencing guidelines, as well as guidelines on general principles of sentencing, including the reductions in sentence for a guilty plea, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out. When considering a financial penalty term of a DPA, it is expected that both the parties and the court would have regard to the same guidelines, as well as the balance of other monetary terms of the DPA. This is to ensure as far as possible that any financial penalty under a deferred prosecution agreement would be broadly comparable to a fine likely to be imposed by a court following a guilty plea.
The effect of Amendment 28 would be to place a cap on the maximum financial penalty that could be negotiated under a deferred prosecution agreement. Given that it will be impossible in any particular case to estimate accurately the likely fine the court would impose, it would in practice be undesirable to seek to limit the freedom of the parties to negotiate the amount of a penalty in this way. In any event, the amount arrived at will have to be agreed by both parties before seeking the court’s approval and the court would need to be satisfied that any financial penalty is fair, reasonable and proportionate, such that we do not think specific further provision is necessary. But as I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I will look at both of his amendments.
Amendment 29 relates to the provisions we have made enabling the parties to negotiate a term specifying the consequences of non-compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement. We have included this provision as a way of dealing with non-compliance capable of being objectively determined by the parties, for example, where the organisation has made a late penalty payment. The aim is for the parties to remedy the non-compliance without recourse to the court, for example, by way of punitive interest in relation to the late payment. Such a term would be negotiated alongside all of the other terms of an agreement and approved by the judge. We do not envisage that such a term will be appropriate in all cases. Whether or not a deferred prosecution agreement includes such a term, paragraph 9 provides a formal procedure for breach and non-compliance which will be the most appropriate way for most instances of non-compliance to be dealt with.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it is desirable to ensure that agreements are tailored to individual cases, with judicial scrutiny of all of the proposed terms to ensure that they are fair, reasonable and proportionate, and that it would be inappropriate to make any of the terms of deferred prosecution agreements mandatory in all cases. And as regards setting the amount of a financial penalty term and inclusion of a consequences term, I trust that my explanation has reassured noble Lords. But I shall read in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has said, and perhaps he will look at what I have said. We can see how they match up or where we should move.
Lord Goldsmith
Perhaps I may say a sentence because it may help the noble Lord and his officials. I had in mind in Amendment 29 that the DPA should say, “And if you fail to comply with this, then the prosecution can take place and you may be proceeded against”. That is the sort of consequence I am thinking of. I understand that the noble Lord is talking about something else. So with that expansion of my meaning, I am grateful that it will be looked at again.
Lord McNally
That is extremely helpful. With my advisers, I will look at the points that the noble and learned Lord has made. We do not go behind the Chair in this House, but he knows what I mean. I shall see if we can match up. I have found his remarks very helpful.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
In relation to my amendments, I understand what the Minister has said. The only point I would make is that it is possible to take the middle position, which is really the position that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has put and which my noble friend has said he will look at. As the noble and learned Lord suggests, the anomaly is where you can have an all-or-nothing financial penalty that still exists, so it must be sensible to have a variable penalty if the noble Lord does not accept my Amendment 24.
Lord Beecham
“( ) Prior to the implementation of the provisions under Schedule 17, the Sentencing Council shall lay before Parliament its proposals for the setting of financial penalties, which must be approved by each House of Parliament.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am of course short, and I will now be brief. The amendment echoes the concerns that some of us have about the introduction of this new concept and the public reaction to it. It is designed to reassure the public that financial penalties, which as the Minister has just reminded us will not apply in every case, and nor should they, will nevertheless be a salient feature of the new regime and, I suspect, the one that will attract the most media attention. In contrast with subsequent amendments, the suggestion here is that there should be only one occasion on which the proposed financial penalty guidelines should have to be approved by Parliament. In his letter to me the Minister confirmed that guidelines will be laid before Parliament. That does not imply a vote, although it might imply a discussion. But on this first occasion, and only this first occasion, given the novelty of the concept it would be sensible and would help to ease the transition into the new system and reassure the public if there were specific parliamentary approval of the guidelines—not, of course, for specific penalties for particular cases, but the broad parameters of how matters might be taken forward.
In respect of other matters, which we will come on to later, I will be arguing for a more regular system. Parliament does not normally intervene in the workings of the Sentencing Council, and nor should we, but these are special circumstances. On that basis, I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his opening remarks where he said he was short so would be brief. I suppose I can replicate those comments. This amendment seeks to provide for parliamentary scrutiny, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, for Sentencing Council guidelines in setting financial penalties.
Schedule 17 provides that the amount of any financial penalty payable under a DPA must be comparable to that which a court would have been likely to impose on conviction. In determining that amount, sentencing guidelines will be relevant. The Sentencing Council, as the Committee may already know, has already indicated that it will produce sentencing guidelines to cover the offences likely to be encompassed by DPAs when committed by an organisation, including fraud, money laundering and bribery offences.
The Sentencing Council is responsible for preparing and monitoring sentencing guidelines with the aim of ensuring greater consistency in sentencing and is of course under a statutory obligation to consult a number of parties when preparing draft guidelines. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this of course includes, as he may well know, the Justice Select Committee. As such, the Government do not think it necessary to introduce a further requirement for parliamentary scrutiny of any guidelines that may be relevant to DPAs in this way. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, although it was commendably brief, as he promised. I do not think the response will go in any way to allay what I anticipate will be public concern over this. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to return to it on Report.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in moving Amendment 30, I will also speak to Amendment 32. Amendment 30 deals with the code to be issued and proposes that it should give guidance on the circumstances prosecutors should consider rather than the general principles to be applied. On first reading the paragraph, I thought there should be parliamentary oversight, but then realised that the paragraph is about the application of the general principles not about the principles themselves. However, it seems to be not wholly clear and I invite the Minister to confirm that the words in paragraph 6(1)(a) are intended to be about the circumstances that the prosecutor should consider. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides for the DPP, in other matters, to issue a code,
“giving guidance on general principles”.
I could not find whether there is any parliamentary oversight of that. I think the answer is probably that it is included in the DPP’s annual report. Something novel and major is being brought into our law and there should be no room for doubt as to the extent of the remit of the DPP and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office in this.
Amendment 32 would substitute the provision that prosecutors must “take account of” the code with “have regard to”. I want to understand whereabouts in the hierarchy—or perhaps on the spectrum—this is intended to be. I could not find in the legislation whether prosecutors are to take account of the current code under the 1985 Act, have regard to it or do something entirely different. The Minister may well be about to tell me that the words used here replicate words used elsewhere on the code. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
I have a short but important point to make on Amendment 31 which stands in my name. As it stands, paragraph 5(2) requires that there should be an expiry date in any DPA but gives no guidance as to what its length should be. There needs to be some end point. This should not hang on for ever—in any event, it is unlikely that it would do so—but it is difficult to specify what that length should be. It could be different depending on the circumstances. The point of my amendment is simply to say that some consideration should be given to how one determines the length of the DPA. The best way of trying to get some guidance about that seemed to be to suggest that it should be included in the proposed code. There may be other ways to do it. I am completely open to what the mechanism is. My concern is that it is undesirable to leave it as it stands with apparently infinite or perpetual DPAs in existence.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I certainly endorse my noble and learned friend’s remarks and support his amendment. I also support Amendment 32 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall speak to Amendments 31A and 31B, which again would provide effectively parliamentary oversight and approval of the code of practice to be drawn up by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
In his letter to me that other noble Lords may have seen, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, indicated that of course the Government believe in,
“the fundamental principle of prosecutorial independence”.
We certainly affirm that. The Minister went on to say that it is therefore appropriate for the code to be issued by the DPP and the director of the Serious Fraud Office,
“rather than it being put on a statutory footing in regulations laid by a Government minister”.
In my judgment, prosecutorial independence merely applies to the way in which a case can proceed, whether it should proceed and the like, but not necessarily the framework.
This is a novel framework being established for this purpose and, I reiterate, it will need to command public support. I do not refer to the individuals currently holding those offices or necessarily to those previously holding them, but neither of those departments has, shall we say, an unblemished reputation among the public over a series of quite different matters over the years. I have every respect for the current holders of those offices. As it happens, they both seem to be doing a very good job but the history is somewhat difficult in both cases. After a consultation process, the holders of those offices would have effectively the final word without any real intervention or guidance by Parliament. That is inappropriate in the particular circumstances of this case. What I propose would not interfere with their prosecutorial discretion, but it would allow the public to have confidence that the framework being established, within which prosecutorial independence would be exercised and maintained, is one that has Parliament’s support. It would not simply be left to Parliament to debate, without being able to influence it, following consultation carried out under the provisions of the Bill. For what it is worth, I have the support of the noble and absent Lord, Lord Phillips. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, looks to the heavens in gratitude. I shall direct the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to Hansard tomorrow. There is a serious point here and I ask the Government to reflect upon it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, in providing for a code of practice for prosecutors in relation to deferred prosecution agreements, the Government have sought to ensure consistency with other statutory provisions relating to guidance for prosecutors on operational matters. As I have said before, the scheme for DPAs is a new concept for our criminal justice system and as such does not fall within the scope of any existing guidance for prosecutors.
I will turn to specific amendments and refer first to Amendment 30. The Government consider that there should be a code for DPAs comparable to the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the DPP under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The code for Crown prosecutors sets out the general principles that prosecutors should follow when undertaking their functions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to paragraph 6(1)(a) of Schedule 17, which reflects Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as to the general nature of the guidance to be set out in the code of practice for DPAs. However, unlike Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, paragraph 6 of Schedule 17 sets out in further detail the matters that must be covered in the code of practice for DPAs. Let me be clear: the key elements of DPAs are clearly set out in the Bill. The code of practice will provide guidance to prosecutors on the exercise of their discretion on operational matters. As such, the code is fundamentally an operational document and seeks to preserve prosecutorial discretion in operational matters. This approach will ensure that the code provides guidance in relation to key procedural matters for DPAs and decisions to be made by prosecutors.
Amendment 31 would add to paragraph 6 a further matter on which the code of practice may give guidance by adding to the list, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said,
“the choice of expiry date for a DPA”.
The Government’s view is that paragraph 6(2) is already clear that the code may give guidance on any relevant matter. If prosecutors consider it necessary and desirable to have guidance on the duration and expiry of an agreement, they would have the power to issue such guidance under that paragraph. We do not therefore see any particular or specific need to highlight this issue, although, again, the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, have been noted on this matter.
Amendments 31A and 31B seek to make the DPA code of practice for prosecutors subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the letter issued by my noble friend Lord McNally. He is correct that the fundamental principle of prosecutorial independence means that it is appropriate for the code to be issued by the DPP and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The code is an operational document, as I have already said. As such, we do not consider that it is either necessary or appropriate to make this code subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This approach is consistent with that under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in respect of the code for Crown prosecutors. I should add that a supplementary delegated powers memorandum has been provided to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has not raised any concerns about the approach taken in Schedule 17.
Amendment 32, referred to by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, relates to the duty on prosecutors to take account of the code of practice for DPAs when exercising functions under Schedule 17. It is essential that there is transparency and consistency in the way DPAs operate. The code of practice will play an important part in meeting these requirements. Requiring prosecutors to “take account of” the code throughout the deferred prosecution agreement process will ensure that it is considered and applied in relation to making decisions and exercising functions. Parties to the agreement, the judge and the public can be confident that each agreement will be approached and made in a consistent manner. We do not consider that requiring a prosecutor to “have regard to” rather than “take account of” the code would make any material difference to the extent of its use by the prosecutor.
In conclusion, there is a strong case for ensuring parity between the legislation providing for the deferred prosecution agreement code of practice and the code of practice for Crown prosecutors issued under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I hope that, in light of the explanations I have given, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will agree not to press their amendments at this time.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. In view of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
Lord Goldsmith
I will also speak to Amendments 34, 36, 37, 39 and 40, which are all in my name. This group covers three topics and I will deal with them shortly. Amendment 33 is really a probing amendment, relating to why there is a double court approval. I have previously talked about the importance of the court approval and nothing that I say now takes away from that. A court approval is important. I was looking forward to explaining to a packed Chamber how the Bill is structured. Sadly, we seem to have reached a moment when it is not as full as I was hoping.
Lord Goldsmith
The quality, as my noble friend says, is however very high. The way the Bill is structured is that there are two court approvals. Under paragraph 7, there has to be a court approval before a DPA is entered into and then a court approval, described as a final hearing under paragraph 8, afterwards. My question is: why is it necessary to have both? I am really not clear what the advantages are because it is plain, under paragraph 8, that a DPA does not come into effect and cannot be entered into unless there is the court’s approval. Why does one need the prior approval under paragraph 7? I do not see the advantages; that is why it is a probing amendment.
I also see disadvantages. There are costs and court time, both of which are precious commodities—particularly for the ministry that the Ministers represent. I am concerned that it is also unnecessarily cumbersome. May it also distort the negotiating process? Might a defendant who is a potential agreer to a DPA say, “I know you want more, Mr Prosecutor, but let us go and ask the judge whether what I have offered so far is enough”. I am not very happy with that proposal. Above all, why is it necessary to have a double process? That is the question. Amendments 37 and 39 are consequential to that amendment.
The next point, which I imagine can be dealt with very quickly, is in Amendments 34 and 36. These amendments are designed to ensure that whatever process there is, whether it is preliminary or final, it is clear that the defendant is to be present when that takes place. I have little doubt that that is what is intended but I would like reassurance on it, and that there is not to be any form of ex parte application by the prosecutor to the court—something to which the defendant is not a party.
Amendment 40 raises a more substantial point. As it stands under the scheme of the Bill, when a DPA comes to an end certain things are to happen. Paragraph 11(8), to which this amendment applies, requires that at that stage there should be details of the compliance. It says that:
“Where proceedings are discontinued under sub-paragraph (1)”,
which I apprehend is when the DPA has come to an end,
“the prosecutor must publish … the fact that the proceedings have been discontinued, and … details of P’s compliance with the DPA”.
I am rather concerned about why that is necessary. It cannot be for the purpose of checking whether there has been compliance because that must be for the prosecutor to do. Indeed, if the public say, “We don’t like this compliance”, there is no procedure for the DPA somehow to come back into existence, so I do not see why it is necessary. If, to take a different case, a prison sentence is reduced for good behaviour, the behaviour that has led to the reduction is not published.
I am concerned for one reason in particular. If there is a lengthy DPA, and the company, which it seems it is simply going to be, has complied and done what was necessary, the publication of the details of its compliance—and I do not know how detailed that will be—would result in the whole thing being revived. That is a little against the spirit of the idea that you make an agreement, it is sanctioned by the court, you comply with its terms, and then your record does not get sullied again. I am concerned that the consequence of this may be to raise the matter again to the disadvantage of the defendant who has done all that was required of him or her. If it is necessary because there is a real point in publicising the details of compliance, that may be one thing, but because I cannot, at the moment, see the benefit of it in the scheme of the provision, I question its desirability. I look forward to hearing what whichever noble Lord responds will say about it. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 34 and 35 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I shall speak briefly to Amendments 38 and 41. Amendment 38 is about public final hearings. Just as there are absolutely sound reasons for the preliminary hearing considering a DPA to be in private to avoid prejudicing any subsequent prosecution, if no DPA is entered into, and to avoid prejudicing negotiations for a DPA, so the final hearing should generally be in public unless there is still at that stage a substantial risk of prejudice. I suggest that that is essential for the public administration of justice and to build and maintain public confidence in these new arrangements. That is the point of Amendment 38.
Amendment 41 is on a similar theme. Under paragraph 12, the court may postpone publication of the terms of a DPA or of a decision on a breach, variation or discontinuance of a DPA if it appears to the court that postponement is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in any legal proceedings. This amendment limits any such postponement to the period of such continuing risk, so that as soon as the risk disappeared, publication would follow. Again, I suggest that that must be in the interests of the public administration of justice.
Lord Beecham
I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments in this group tabled by my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. Both aspects seem to be matters that they should consider before Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Transparency and openness are key to the operation of the new deferred prosecution agreement process. In designing this process the Government have sought to strike a balance between the need for the parties to be able to negotiate without prejudice and to discuss a proposed agreement with a judge openly, with the imperative to avoid the perception that this is justice behind closed doors. Certainly, it is not to give the impression of cosy deals being struck in private.
Amendments 33, 37 and 39, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, would remove the preliminary hearing element from the process for entering into deferred prosecution agreements. The Government’s strongly held view is that the preliminary hearing is an essential feature of the process for entering into a DPA. It is at this stage that the prosecutor and the organisation are able to discuss the potential for an agreement and its outline terms openly with the judge.
Judicial scrutiny at this early stage is very important to determine whether an agreement, first, is likely, in principle, to be in the interests of justice, and, secondly, whether its proposed terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate. More importantly, the preliminary hearing allows greater judicial involvement and judicial influence on the outcome, which critics say perhaps is lacking in the model used in the United States. After all, it is the doctrine of UK law that not only should justice be done but it is seen to be done.
Participation by organisations in the DPA process will be voluntary, as has been said previously. Some 93% of respondents to our consultation agreed that the preliminary hearing should be held in private in order to limit any potential prejudice to an organisation’s commercial interests and to prevent jeopardising a future prosecution.
Amendments 34 and 36, also proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, probe the requirement that at the preliminary hearing and the final hearing the prosecutor must apply to the Crown Court for a declaration that entering into a DPA is in the interests of justice and that the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
It is clear from the legislation as drafted that the hearing and the declaration sought will relate to an agreement which both parties have been negotiating. While the schedule does not state explicitly that the organisation can or will take part in the proceedings we think that this is very much implied. We are clear that while the prosecutor is the party to initiate the court process leading to the declaration, the organisation will be entitled to take part, as a separate party, in those proceedings. The detail of the criminal procedure relating to such hearings will be set out in criminal procedure rules. Adding the suggested words will not in our view clarify either the purpose of the hearing or the organisation’s role in it and we do not, therefore, think that they are necessary.
Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks, relates to provisions setting out the approval process of an agreement at a final hearing. During a preliminary hearing held in private, the judge will have indicated whether an agreement is likely to be in the interests of justice and whether the proposed terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
Before the final hearing. there will be further scope for the parties to refine the agreement, such that the agreement may not be identical to that before the court at the preliminary hearing. The provisions in paragraph 8 of Schedule 17 therefore allow for the final hearing to start in private to give the parties and the judge a final opportunity to ensure in a confidential setting that everything is as it should be before the agreement is approved in an open court.
It must be remembered that there is always the possibility that even at this late stage, either party can decide whether the process should not go forward, or the judge may not be satisfied that the agreement should be concluded. If the agreement is not made, the confidentiality of discussions between the parties should be protected to protect any potential jeopardy to the organisation’s interests and to avoid potential prejudice to any other prosecutions. Restricting the ability to hear the case in private only to situations where there could be a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice is, therefore, too restrictive. It is not expected that the final hearing would need to start in private for all cases, but we make provision for those presumably limited cases where this may be deemed to be necessary.
Importantly, where a DPA is made and approved the prosecutor must publish any declarations and reasons, including any initial decisions not to approve the DPA, so that there will be transparency once the DPA has been made. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is desirable for the parties to have a final opportunity for further discussion with a judge, should they consider this necessary, about an agreement in private, ahead of moving into open court for an agreement to be formally approved. I suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable for a judge to determine whether the first part of a final hearing should be in private, solely based on the criteria suggested by Amendment 38.
On Amendment 40, if the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement are complied with, the agreement will expire on the expiry date set therein. Under paragraph 11 of the schedule, the criminal proceedings that were instituted and suspended will then be discontinued by the prosecutor by application to the court. The purpose of this is to bring the criminal proceedings to an end clearly and transparently.
Once the proceedings have been discontinued, the prosecutor will publish that fact and will additionally publish details of how the agreement was complied with. Amendment 40, as tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, seeks perhaps to probe further as to why it is necessary to publish this.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that detailed reply. I want to study carefully in Hansard what he said, as I want to study what was said by him previously on other amendments and by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and then decide what I would like to bring back on Report. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his reply, as I was grateful for the detailed letter that came from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which dealt with questions that I raised on the previous occasion. Subject to that, and given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, paragraph 13 of the schedule provides for the use of material in criminal proceedings. Sub-paragraph (4) states that certain material,
“may only be used in evidence … on a prosecution”,
either for the same offence or for an offence as it says in the paragraph—I will not take up the Committee’s time in reading it. The material in question is,
“material that shows that P entered into negotiations for a DPA, including in particular”.
I was concerned by the phrase “in particular”. The way I have dealt with that in the amendment to probe this is to insert “any” so that it is “any material”,
“that shows that P entered into negotiations for a DPA”.
I hope that the Minister can assure me that the items listed are merely the most obvious examples and that this is not an exhaustive list. It seems to me that it could be interpreted that way. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, this amendment relates to paragraph 13 of Schedule 17, which deals with the use of material arising from DPAs. In particular, it seeks clarification about what can be relied upon by a prosecutor in future criminal proceedings when a DPA has not been approved by the court and made. The Government’s intention is to provide necessary protections and safeguards as regards organisations voluntarily entering into the process towards the making of a DPA in the event, for whatever reason, that an agreement is not finalised. Without these safeguards, some organisations might not voluntarily engage and co-operate with the prosecution.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I can give her the assurance that paragraph 13(6)(a) is a non-exhaustive list of materials that are likely to be produced during the process towards the making of an agreement, which would show that negotiations had been entered into. They are the most obvious documents, and the use of the words “including in particular” makes it clear that they may not be the only materials that might show that negotiations had taken place and would not be capable of being used other than in the limited circumstances referred to in paragraph 13(4). I suggest that inserting “any” at the start of, or removing “in particular” from, paragraph 13(6)(a) would not make the position any clearer.
I trust that with the assurance that I have given to my noble friend she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think that that amounted to a yes in response to my request for assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Treatment of money paid under a DPA14A Money paid to satisfy a requirement under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (g) of paragraph 5(3) shall not be treated as a deductible expense for the purposes of taxation.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, a number of requirements may be made under paragraph 5, including imposing a fine or asking for compensation, a donation of money to a charity and reasonable costs. I was particularly concerned that the donation to a charity should not be treated by P as a deductable expense for tax purposes. In normal circumstances it probably would be, but that seemed to me to be offensive.
The HMRC has confirmed on its website that a fine is not,
“incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade”,
but I do not think that it would do any harm to confirm this in the legislation. I have not included disgorging profits because, presumably, tax was paid on them in the first instance, so I can see an argument that they should be deductable. But I am interested in particular in hearing what the Minister has to say about payments to charity. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for drawing the Committee’s attention to this issue. The Government firmly believe that wrongdoers should not be able to profit or otherwise benefit from their offending behaviour; that is why DPAs will require organisations to comply with tough terms and conditions. These terms may include financial elements such as requirements to pay compensation to victims, a financial penalty, and the reasonable costs of the prosecutor, as well as a requirement on the organisation to disgorge the proceeds of criminal wrongdoing. However, it should also be remembered—as it was in discussions on a previous amendment, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—that DPAs can include other non-financial requirements, such as updating anti-corruption or fraud policies and retraining staff. Those are important attributes.
Deferred prosecution agreements are intended to ensure that organisations recognise and are held to account for their wrongdoing and take steps to mend their ways. Fulfilling the terms of an agreement should not be seen as simple entries in an organisation’s financial book-keeping records. The harm inflicted on the victims of economic crime and innocent third parties should not be seen simply as a cost of doing business.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that my noble friend referred to tax. The tax obligations of organisations relating to financial penalties and compensation payments can be, and are, complicated. These obligations have been very carefully developed over many years to ensure the right balance is struck. Although I welcome my noble friend’s efforts to clarify taxation arrangements under a DPA, the question of whether and which financial elements might be tax deductible is, and should continue to be, determined by finance legislation so that all relevant matters and consequences can be taken into consideration. That also avoids a piecemeal and haphazard approach to tax matters which might set an unhelpful precedent or have unintended consequences. Matters in respect of taxation are properly a matter for the Finance Acts and not for legislation such as this.
In light of these points, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Hamwee would agree to withdraw her amendment. In conclusion, I say to the Committee, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that I think it would be beneficial to arrange a meeting with officials so that we can address some of the issues more specifically in advance of Report stage. But for now, I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, of course I will withdraw the amendment. I understand that tax is complicated and that the Government prefer to deal with it in specific legislation. Nevertheless, I think that at the moment there is the very real possibility that a donation to charity made under this provision would be treated as deductible. I hope that the Minister will arrange for that to be confirmed to me or otherwise so that I can consider what to do on the next occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.