House of Commons
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
1. What steps Ministers in his Department are taking to promote Scottish business overseas.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The Government have taken a range of actions to promote Scottish businesses overseas, including the appointment of Brian Wilson as a UK business ambassador. I have also held recent discussions with the Canadian Trade Minister and with business leaders in Canada and the USA.
Michael Moore
No Scottish business leader has ever put that point to me, possibly because they recognise the strength of Scotland’s being in the United Kingdom and the fact that there are 162 UK Trade & Investment offices backed up by 270 consulates across the world.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Last year, the Scotch whisky industry was worth more than £4.2 billion; it is one of Scotland’s and the UK’s biggest exporting industries. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government charge for its promotion internationally? How much do they charge and why?
Michael Moore
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the success of the Scotch whisky industry, which is a huge part of the overall success of Scotland’s food and drink sector and goes alongside other significant economic areas such as financial services, energy and the like, which are so critical to Scotland’s exporting potential. I do not want to put any of that at risk; that is why I think that Scotland’s being part of an international network of embassies, consulates and UKTI offices is the best way forward.
Angus Robertson
Everyone will have noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I asked him whether he would confirm that the UK Government charge for the promotion of Scotch whisky internationally. Apparently, the Foreign Office does charge—£3,000 a time to Scottish Development International to promote Scotch whisky at international events. That is utterly ridiculous. What is he doing about it and when is it going to stop?
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore the fact that, thanks to the UK Government, we have our network of offices across the whole world, and our embassy network is second to none—certainly when compared with what an independent Scotland would have. Scotch whisky is in a much stronger place as a result of Scotland’s being part of the United Kingdom than it would be if we were independent.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State recognise how important the energy industry in north-east Scotland is to driving export potential for Scotland? We have built a strong home base for skills and technology, honed in the North sea, and that is a base for great export potential to provinces around the world.
Michael Moore
I pay tribute, as I have in the past, to my hon. Friend’s significant work in this area. He is an undoubted champion of the oil and gas sector, not just in north-east Scotland but across the whole UK. He is right to point out the sector’s potential and will be aware that I met the Brazilian ambassador and Brazilian oil and gas interests in Aberdeen a few months ago. I look forward to returning to Brazil to focus on oil and gas issues in the next few weeks.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I go back to the question of Scotch whisky, which accounts for 25% of all UK food and drink exports, yet is held back by various tariff barriers around the world—most notably in India, where there is a tariff of 150%. Will the Secretary of State set out what action the Government are taking to help whisky industry export growth in other countries?
Michael Moore
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the whisky sector, not least to large chunks of Scotland; it is not just concentrated around the distilleries. We are working hard with Scotch whisky interests to ensure that we work within Europe to break down the barriers in India and elsewhere. There is a level of support for the Scotch whisky industry that it could not hope to have in an independent Scotland.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
2. What effect cancelling the fuel duty rise planned for January 2013 will have on motorists in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Cancelling the fuel duty rise planned for January will help owners of the 2.7 million motor vehicles in Scotland, saving a typical driver £40 a year and a haulier £1,200 a year.
Bob Blackman
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that cancelling Labour’s planned tax increases on fuel will save the average Scottish motorist more than £600 during the life of the coalition Government?
David Mundell
I agree that the deferral of Labour’s planned duty rise in April this year will mean that fuel will be 13p a litre cheaper than it would have been under a Labour Government.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s listening to our call to stop the rise. However, what discussion has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about what assistance can be given to small independent petrol retailers, particularly in rural areas, to ensure that people living in those areas, and not just those who live in urban areas, are able to take advantage of decent pricing?
David Mundell
The hon. Lady makes an important point. At the end of this month I will meet fuel distributors and MPs from rural areas, and she is very welcome to join that meeting to discuss fuel prices and fuel distribution in rural areas.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I am delighted that the Government have cancelled Labour’s fuel duty escalator and cut fuel duty by 1p on the mainland and 6p on the islands. Will the Minister support the call to lobby the European Union to extend the island fuel duty discount to remote parts of the mainland such as mainland Argyll?
David Mundell
Indeed. My hon. Friend will have noted that in the mid-term review the coalition Government have undertaken to examine the possibility of extending the 5p reduction to areas of the mainland that are similar to island communities.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The cut in fuel duty through the rural fuel derogation has been very welcome in my constituency. I remember asking Labour to do that when in power, and it refused. When will it be extended to Skye, Lochaber, Argyll and Wester Ross—areas through which my constituents pass on the way home and on the way back to the mainland?
David Mundell
As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), in the mid-term review the coalition Government have undertaken to examine exactly that possibility.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Government have done their bit in cutting fuel duty at the pumps. Will my right hon. Friend lobby the oil companies to take on their responsibility in this respect, because when international oil prices fall, prices still remain high at the pumps?
David Mundell
Indeed. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that there is an Office of Fair Trading inquiry into fuel prices, and we very much look forward to seeing the outcome of that in January.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Has the Minister looked into whether these reductions, or lack of increases, have been passed on to motorists in Scotland? Is he aware that in Kennington road in London one can buy petrol at 129.9p? Besides the fact that there is a 5p differential between the price in London and the price in my constituency, it is now more expensive to buy petrol next to Grangemouth, where petrol is produced for Scotland, than in the Kennington road in London. Is the Minister doing anything to make sure that motorists are not being ripped off by those selling the fuel?
David Mundell
The price of fuel at different petrol stations in different communities has been a matter of long-term concern, and that is why the OFT is conducting an inquiry into it. In my previous answer, I indicated that the results of that inquiry will be available in January, and they will make very interesting reading.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
3. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Scottish Government on the continued use of sterling in an independent Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
The United Kingdom Government are undertaking a programme of work to inform the debate ahead of the referendum. This involves looking at a range of issues including the importance of sterling to all parts of the United Kingdom. There have been no discussions with the Scottish Government about the use of sterling by an independent Scotland.
David Mowat
The decision to use sterling after separation means that the Bank of England will be the bank of last resort and the lender of last resort to Scotland. To avoid a repetition of what happened in the eurozone, the UK residual Government must have an oversight role in Scottish spending plans. Has this been sought, and on what time scale will it happen?
Michael Moore
There have been no such discussions. The important point is that sterling has served Scotland and the whole of the UK well for 300 years. We have seen in the eurozone the risk of having a formal monetary union without a fiscal union. A fiscally independent Scotland would create real complications in that regard. All this would have to be negotiated after the referendum vote, and it would take some persuading for people in the rest of the UK to take on the role that the Scottish National party wishes for it.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Minister knows very well that the Scottish Government intend that Scotland should continue to use sterling after independence, and as sterling is a fully convertible and floating currency there is precisely nothing to stop that. While it makes far more sense to have a formal union, does he not agree that a stability pact based around debt and deficit levels is perfectly sensible but can in no way be portrayed as a foreign currency running Scotland’s economy?
Michael Moore
First, I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to his place. Although we do not always agree with all his points and arguments, we are absolutely delighted with his contribution. We are glad to see him in good health and wish him all the best.
Should Scotland vote to become independent in the referendum—I do not believe that it will—the use of sterling would be a matter for negotiation. The reason for the Bank of England’s credibility as the lender of last resort at present is that we have a single, central fiscal authority and the UK taxpayer stands behind it. To complicate that would require negotiation with the rest of the UK, which would have to consider its interests. We cannot have a one-sided wish list; we have to recognise that there will be negotiation.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Is not the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and, in fact, the Secretary of State wrong on this? If there were an independent Scotland, I assume that it would want, mistakenly, to apply to join the European Union, so would it not then be required to accept the euro?
Michael Moore
There are many ways in the which the SNP and the hon. Member for Dundee East are completely wrong—I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on that. He makes an important point that, amid all the SNP’s turmoil over its position on Europe, it has never set out how it would negotiate the opt-out from the critical central requirement to join the euro.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
13. Last year, on 5 December, I took part in a Westminster Hall debate in which the Under-Secretary said that he had commissioned a report into why the separatist-led Dundee city council was the worst-performing local authority in Scotland with regard to the Work programme. I have contacted his office several times since, but he has yet to get back to me. On 19 December, he said that I would get a letter with more details, but I have yet to receive it. When will the report be published?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wanted to inquire about the continued use of sterling in an independent Scotland.
Michael Moore
I am not sure how the Work programme would be affected by a different currency or the currency arrangements after independence, should that be the way we go. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) as soon as possible to discuss the important issue that he has raised. We will make sure that that happens.
Mr Speaker
It may be that the hon. Member for Dundee West really wanted to come in on question 4 and that he got ahead of himself. I do not know, but it is done and I am sure that he is grateful.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
4. How many people in Scotland will be affected by the Government’s plan to limit the uprating of in-work benefits to 1%.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
9. How many people in Scotland will be affected by the Government’s plan to limit the uprating of in-work benefits to 1%.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions published an impact assessment for the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, which states that about 30% of all households will be affected by the measures contained in the Bill.
Gregg McClymont
I thank the Minister for that answer. Even after changes to tax allowances, a single-earner household with children in my constituency will be £534 a year worse off by April 2015. With that priority in mind, does the Minister still believe that the Government should go ahead with their priority of a £2,000 a week tax cut for millionaires?
David Mundell
What I believe is that the Government should continue to work to sort out the mess in the economy that the hon. Gentleman’s Labour Government left behind. The measures announced yesterday will save £5 billion and he and his colleagues have not given any answers as to where they would find such savings if they did not implement those changes.
Ann McKechin
One in five working families in Scotland who rely on tax credits will see a cut in their real income as a result of these changes. Many of them rely on low-paid, temporary and part-time jobs when, in fact, they want permanent, full-time jobs. What steps will the Minister take in 2013 to tackle the scourge of under-employment in Scotland?
David Mundell
The Secretary of State will work with the Scottish Government and stakeholders in Scotland to set up an employability forum, which will look at the two Governments and all interested parties in Scotland working together to ensure that we get more people into full-time employment.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
14. Does the Minister agree that, for better or worse, the Scottish economy is part of the UK economy, and that the economy of our whole country will not improve unless and until we bring public spending under control?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits issue is an example of where, simply to curry favour with the electorate, the SNP Scottish Government are making promises that they could not possibly keep in an independent Scotland.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell the House how many members of the armed forces in Scotland will see their incomes cut as a result of last night’s vote?
David Mundell
Last night’s vote was about ensuring that we have a sustainable welfare system. The hon. Lady’s answer on all these issues is more borrowing, more spending and more debt. She cannot say how she would fund the rises in benefit for which she voted.
Margaret Curran
What a disappointing answer. The answer is 4,000 members of the armed forces. There might be a Liberal Democrat leading the Scotland Office, but Scots can see that this Government are just the same old Tories. In 2010, the Department told us that it had
“absolutely no desire to see people losing their jobs or being in worse circumstances than they were in before”.
Will the Minister explain why the Government are failing the test that they set themselves?
David Mundell
What the people of Scotland know is that it is the same old Labour: there is no apology for the mess that it left the economy in and its only proposal is more spending, more borrowing and more debt.
Mr Speaker
No, not number 5. The hon. Gentleman must be patient. I am coming to him. I am saving him up. He is worth saving.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that I opposed the cap on in-work benefits last night because it will hammer thousands of families in Scotland who are trying to bring up children while working hard in low-paid jobs. However, does he share my surprise that some senior MPs, including members of the last Labour Government, who left his Government with an almighty mess in the public finances, did not even turn up to vote last night?
David Mundell
Nothing that SNP Members say or do surprises me. The SNP’s position is totally hypocritical. The Scottish Government are asking nurses and NHS workers to take a 1% pay rise, yet they want benefits to rise by more than that.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
5. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last 12 months.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
12. How many people in Scotland have used food banks in the last six months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Jobcentre Plus operates a food bank referral service. However, the Government do not hold information on the number of people seeking assistance from food banks.
Mr Donohoe
We are in 2013 and not 1813, are we not? The need for food banks this year in Scotland is an abominable reflection on society. There is even a food bank in Prestwick, which is one of the most salubrious parts of my constituency. According to the Trussell Trust, 15% of the people who use that food bank are in employment. What an indictment that is of the Government.
David Mundell
Although I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the use of food banks and the fact that there are vulnerable people in crisis situations, I do not accept the pretence that food banks have come into existence since this Government came to power. That is simply not true. There were food banks under Labour; it is simply that they were not advertised in jobcentres.
Lindsay Roy
What message does the Minister have for the increasing number of people in my constituency who are being forced to go to food banks to feed their families? What will he do to alleviate that situation?
David Mundell
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concern because he instigated a useful Westminster Hall debate on this matter. The Government will continue to do all that we can to help and support the vulnerable in his constituency and elsewhere.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Two years ago, the Secretary of State said about the Government’s plans that
“the horrible truth is that across the country everyone is going to have to make a contribution”.
The horrible truth of life in Scotland under his Government, however, is that a food bank in my constituency has experienced a father walking a 15-mile round trip for a bag of food to feed his family. Is that an appropriate contribution while the Government give a £2,000 a week tax cut to millionaires?
David Mundell
I have already indicated that the Government are always concerned about those who need to use food banks in any circumstances, but I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party on millionaires when they want to give them child benefit.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
6. What recent discussions his Department has had on the provision of superfast broadband in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The UK Government have allocated a £100 million investment for rural broadband projects in Scotland. It is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to deliver on that. Scotland Office officials keep in close and regular contact with Broadband Delivery UK and Department for Culture, Media and Sport colleagues overseeing the roll-out of all broadband projects in the UK.
Pauline Latham
In the Minister’s discussions with Scottish Government Ministers, have they told him what progress they are making towards implementing superfast broadband access?
David Mundell
It is clear that people throughout Scotland want broadband access implemented as soon as possible, particularly in rural areas. We will work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that they deliver on the undertakings that they have given on the £100 million that they have received.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Although I recognise the important role that the Scottish Government play in the provision of broadband in rural areas—[Interruption.] I thought those cheers were for me. The Minister is fully aware that in areas such as his and mine, small and medium-sized enterprises depend upon good connectivity. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Scottish Government are delivering?
David Mundell
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will hold the Scottish Government to account for that investment. Although the UK Government have funded investment in the cities—in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Perth—we want the Scottish Government to deliver for Dumfries and Galloway and equivalent rural areas throughout Scotland. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal for a bit of order. There are now far too many very noisy private conversations taking place. Let us hear Sir Malcolm Bruce.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I thank the UK Government for the support they have given to Aberdeen city’s bid under the small cities broadband fund, and for their contribution along with the Scottish Government, the city of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to the expansion of broadband. May I urge the Minister to recognise that although we want superfast broadband in the cities, we also need access in rural areas at sufficient speeds to enable businesses to flourish rather than forcing people to migrate to cities?
David Mundell
I can advise the right hon. Gentleman that I have met Aberdeenshire council to discuss exactly that issue. Although superfast broadband is welcome in Aberdeen, we want it rolled out into Aberdeenshire as well.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The use of superfast broadband is of course one effective way to promote the identity of our country. Will the Minister welcome to Parliament today the Ulster-Scots Agency? It is promoting the links between Ulster and Scotland, of which the Secretary of State is a wonderful example as a born Ulsterman who is now serving Scotland. Will the Minister use superfast broadband to continue to promote our wonderful culture and shared Ulster and Unionist heritage?
David Mundell
The Secretary of State is a wonderful example of many things, and the answer is yes. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is now far too much noise. I am sure the House will want to hear Mr Karl MᶜCartney.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
7. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of policies announced in the autumn statement 2012 on Scotland.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What assessment he has made of the effect on Scotland of the autumn statement 2012 .
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Against a difficult economic backdrop, the autumn statement set out a range of measures to protect Scotland’s economy, to help equip Scottish businesses to compete in the global race and deliver growth, and to ensure that businesses and households in Scotland are treated fairly.
Karl MᶜCartney
Would my right hon. Friend confirm that one disastrous consequence of any hypothetical independent Scotland would be a disjointed transport system? Although my Lincoln constituency might benefit from more capacity on the east coast line, does the Minister agree that many people in Scotland would not be happy to see direct rail services on the line from London to Edinburgh and beyond curtailed in any way?
Michael Moore
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of keeping Scotland within the United Kingdom, to the benefit not just of Scotland but of the whole United Kingdom.
Gemma Doyle
The Government said that they would get the deficit down, balance the books fairly and get people back to work. However, the deficit is billions of pounds higher this year than it was last year, one in five working families is having its tax credits slashed, and long-term unemployment is rising faster in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Is the Secretary of State happy to be part of a Government who are failing all their own tests?
Michael Moore
The deficit has come down by a quarter, and the hon. Lady should acknowledge that the Government are clearing up the mess that Labour left behind. We will take absolutely no lessons from the hon. Lady or her party. We have cut income tax for the lowest earners: they did not. We have restored the earnings link to pensions: they refused to. We have helped millions of Scottish motorists during difficult times: they were planning to do the opposite. We will take no lessons from Labour on how to manage the economy.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Karl MᶜCartney
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and the rest of the House a prosperous, positive and happy new year?
Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that if public servants are having a 1% pay rise, it is only fair for those on benefits to be given the same increase?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. These are difficult decisions that we have to make, but they should be made in the context of the fact that over the past five years, benefits have gone up by 20% yet average earnings are up by only 10%. I think it is fair and right to have a 1% cap on out-of-work benefits, a 1% cap on tax credits, and a 1% cap on public sector pay. What is inexplicable is the position of the Labour party which supports a 1% public sector pay cap but wants more for welfare claimants. That is not fair or right and it should think again.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister tell us why on Monday when he published his mid-term review he failed to publish his audit of coalition broken promises?
The Prime Minister
We will be publishing absolutely every single audit of every single promise—all 399 pledges set out in the mid-term review. Unlike the Labour party, the audit will be full, frank and completely unvarnished and the right hon. Gentleman will see it this afternoon. Let me perhaps remind him of some of those pledges. We said we would cut the deficit and it is down by 25%; we said we would cut immigration and it is down by 25%; we said we would rebalance the economy and there are 1 million private sector jobs. That is a record to be proud of.
Edward Miliband
I am afraid the Prime Minister will have to do better than that. His adviser said that the Government should not publish the secret audit because it had “problematic areas”, would lead to “unfavourable copy”, and identify “broken pledges”—that is a far cry from the rose garden, isn’t it? The Government said they would
“throw open the doors…to enable the public to hold politicians…to account.”
Have another go; it is a simple question. Was it the Prime Minister’s decision not to publish the audit because —and I quote from his adviser—it would “overshadow” favourable coverage? [Interruption.] The Prime Minister should calm down; it is early in the year so calm down. You’ve got difficult times ahead. Was it the Prime Minister’s decision not to publish the audit?
The Prime Minister
It is my decision that it is being published this afternoon. Is that really the best he can do? He has had a week sitting in the Canary Islands with nothing else to think of. He cannot ask about unemployment because it is falling; he cannot ask about business creation because it is rising; he does not want to talk about the deficit because we have got it down; he cannot ask about welfare because he knows he is on the wrong side of the argument.
Edward Miliband
The only people on the wrong side of the argument are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who are trying to divide the country.
We have not seen the secret audit, but let us see whether we can get a sneak preview of it. The coalition agreement said:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.
I think we can all agree that that promise has been broken, so can the Prime Minister confirm that it is on the list?
The Prime Minister
What will be on the list is the 5,000 more doctors and 6,000 fewer managers in the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to divide the country. The division is this: two parties came together in the national interest to take the difficult decisions, and one party refuses to apologise for the past and to talk about the deficit, and has no economic policy to speak of. That is the division in British politics today.
Edward Miliband
I have to say that if the Prime Minister cannot even admit that he has broken his promise on the top-down reorganisation of the NHS, I do not have high hopes for this secret audit. Let us talk about another broken promise, this time on women. In his usual, modest way, he said:
“We want to make sexual inequality history.”
That is a big commitment. He added:
“That needs a serious commitment…clear policies”
and clear “leadership”. Will the secret audit therefore acknowledge another broken promise that the tax and benefit changes he is making are hitting women—[Interruption.] The part-time Chancellor should calm down a bit too. Will the Prime Minister admit that the tax and benefit changes he is making are hitting women three times as hard as men?
The Prime Minister
There are more women in work than at any—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. The questions from the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, and the answers from the Prime Minister must be heard.
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition will be able to see when the document is published that there are more women in work than at any time in our history; that our pension reforms are helping women; that our public sector pay freeze, which excludes the lowest paid, is helping women; and that we are helping women with extra child care for four, three and two-year-olds. What a contrast between a Government who are prepared to publish every piece of information about every pledge and what has been achieved, and the Labour party, which cannot even apologise for the mess it left this country in.
Edward Miliband
After that answer, it is no wonder the Prime Minister did not take any questions from women journalists at his relaunch press conference.
Let us turn to the Prime Minister’s biggest broken promise of all. The Chancellor hits hard-working people and the most vulnerable with his strivers’ tax, but at the same time, he is giving—this April—a massive tax cut to millionaires. If the Prime Minister’s audit is to be a candid assessment, will it not have to admit that he has broken that symbolic promise that we are all in this together?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows the facts about the top rate of tax. His move to 50p meant that millionaires paid £7 billion less in taxes than they did previously. The fact is that, under this Government, the top rate of tax will be higher in every year than it was in any year under his Government.
The truth is this. The right hon. Gentleman talks about promises, but let us have a little audit of his promises. He promised us a fully costed deficit reduction programme, but we have had nothing; he promised us proper reforms of welfare, but we have had nothing; and he promised us that he would show how he would have a new policy on tuition fees, but we have had nothing. I have audited all of the Government’s spending programmes and I have identified one where the waste is simply appalling: the £5 million of Short money that goes to the Labour party every year—we get nothing from it.
Edward Miliband
The more the Prime Minister rants and blusters, the less convincing he is. The facts are these: he is cutting the top rate of income tax by an average of £107,000 for everyone earning more than £1 million in Britain at the same time as he is raising taxes on everyone else. What do we know from this week? We know that he is a PR man who cannot even do a relaunch. Halfway through this Parliament, we know that the Government are incompetent, that they break their promises and that the nasty party is back.
The Prime Minister
It is perfectly clear what has happened since the start of this year. It is this Government who are setting out their plans for the future; it is the right hon. Gentleman’s party that is on the wrong side of the argument on welfare, that has nothing to say about the deficit, and has no credible policy on the economy. He has a shadow Chancellor who he will not back, but cannot sack. Nothing has changed in politics and nothing has changed in Labour.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Q2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be cutting taxes for hard-working people in Basildon and Thurrock, rather than taking money away from them only to then return their own money through tax credits?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, he will know that in April every working family will see a £220 tax cut as we lift the tax threshold yet further—everyone will benefit from that. In our view, what we should be doing is cutting people’s taxes, rather than taking more in taxes and recycling them through the massive tax credits business. That is what we believe on the Government Benches, and that is what will work for working families.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Q3. Is it not a clear example of how out of touch the Prime Minister is that while the overwhelming majority of the public want to maintain the ban on fox and stag hunting, he actually plans to repeal it? Will he tell us why?
The Prime Minister
As I explained before Christmas, I have never broken the law and the only little red pests I pursue these days are in this House.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that under this Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the House wishes to hear the words of Mr Andrew Selous.
Andrew Selous
Does the Prime Minister accept that we have brought in an 11% rise to the child element of tax credits, followed by a 5% rise, and that our recent rises build on them, meaning a cash increase of £470 in the child element of tax credits under this Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we focus help on those most in need. I would also make the point that, because we have lifted the income tax threshold, someone on minimum wage who works full-time will have seen their income tax bill cut in half under this Government. We are on the side of people who want to work hard, get on and provide for their families.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Q4. There are more than 1 million children living in poverty who do not qualify for a free school meal. Several children’s charities are concerned that that number will increase when universal credit is introduced. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to allay their fears by giving a clear guarantee that any child who qualifies for a free school meal under the current rules will keep that entitlement when the rules are changed?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at what the right hon. Gentleman says about free school meals, but let me just make the point that universal credit will extend help to more people and to more families. It will help those people who are only able to work a few hours a week, and help them with child care as well.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Q5. It was good to see the Prime Minister out running over Christmas, and he is now setting the pace on welfare reform. I have been out training for the London marathon to raise funds for my local Forget Me Not children’s hospice. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising all those who fundraise and volunteer for local hospices, and reaffirm the Government’s support for such schemes as the capital fund for hospices, for which my local Kirkwood hospice is currently applying?
The Prime Minister
First, I wish my hon. Friend every good luck for the London marathon—that is far more than I am capable of, I can assure him. We are continuing to support children’s hospices by carrying on with the £10 million funding. In this financial year, we have provided an additional £720,000. We are also making £60 million of capital funding available to adult and children’s hospices. Crucially, in the coalition agreement, a full audit of which will be published later today, we will be demonstrating how we will fulfil our pledge for a per-patient funding system for palliative care, which will help all children’s hospices as they do such important work for our country.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q6. Will the Prime Minister confirm that single mum Maggie from my constituency, who works all the hours she can in Tesco but does not earn enough to gain from the new tax allowances, will, after his changes to tax credits and universal credit, be a staggering £1,255 a year worse off?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Lady is that everybody is affected by these changes. Everyone on tax credits will be affected by the fact that there is only a 1% increase. Everyone on out-of-work benefits will be affected by the fact that there is only a 1% increase. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we are saving £5 billion through these changes, which I believe are fair, how would Labour fill in this £5 billion black hole? What would it take it off? Would it take it off the NHS? Would it take it off the defence budget? It is time we had some answers from the Labour party.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the coalition Government for allocating £10.7 million to Edinburgh’s super-connected city bid. It will revolutionise home and business internet use in parts of my constituency such as Kirkliston and Ratho. Unfortunately, my constituents are immensely frustrated at Edinburgh council’s year-long procurement process. What can the Prime Minister do to help speed up that process?
The Prime Minister
It is vital that everyone has access to broadband and that increasingly we have that overwhelming access to superfast broadband. I suspect that Edinburgh city council has seen some of the same problems that councils up and down the country have seen with getting state-aid clearance. We now have that clearance for broadband in England, but I am happy to look at the situation in Edinburgh. That has been one of the problems holding back this vital programme.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q7. “You shouldn’t have to fill in long forms from the Revenue. You’re working. You need help. We want to help you.” I am sure the Prime Minister recognises his words to families receiving child benefit. How many families could face a fine for not filling out a long tax form?
The Prime Minister
The point about the child benefit change is that 85% of families who receive child benefit will go on getting it. The question we all have to ask is whether it is right for people earning £20,000 or £30,000 to go on giving child benefit to people earning £70,000, £80,000 or £90,000. We do not believe it is right, but apparently the Labour party thinks it is right to give child benefit to millionaires. We do not think that is a good use of money.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q8. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly recognises that there needs to be a new relationship between this country and the European Union. He has said—and I agree—that the British people must be offered a “real choice” with regard to our continued membership. I hope that he can confirm to the House today that it is his intention to seek a fresh settlement with the EU and then to seek the consent of the British people to that settlement.
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that that is exactly what I believe this country should do. It is the right thing for Britain, because it is right that we are involved in the single market and are active players in the EU, but there are changes that we would like in our relationship that would be good for Britain and good for Europe, and because of the changes taking place in the eurozone, which is driving a lot of the change in the European Union, there is every opportunity to achieve that settlement and then seek consent for it.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Q9. A colleague of Lord Marland said: “He likes the foreign travel, leading trade delegations, meeting foreign leaders, but wasn’t so keen on the detailed”policy of his new job. Hmm, I wonder if the Prime Minister knows anybody else like that.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman had all morning to think of that! It is important that we have Ministers in both Houses who are linking up with the fastest-growing countries in the world. That is why our exports to China and India are up 50%. We are connecting Britain with the fastest-growing parts of the world.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Bearing in mind that Bills that might be thought to affect the royal prerogative require the signification of the Queen on Second Reading, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet heard from the palace whether it regards any of the major constitutional changes proposed in the Succession to the Crown Bill as intruding on either the royal prerogative or the coronation oath that Her Majesty took?
The Prime Minister
Throughout the process of bringing forward this proposal, to which of course the Heads of all the Commonwealth—the dominion realms—have also signed up, there has been very thorough contact between No. 10 Downing street and the palace, and all the issues are settled and agreed.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q10. Hundreds of thousands of householders in high flood-risk areas cannot understand why the Government have effectively abandoned efforts to reach agreement with the British insurance industry on future insurance for their homes and fear that they will not be able to insure their homes after June 2013. Why is the Prime Minister fiddling while the country floods?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman right. The discussions are still under way. They have made very good progress. I am confident that we will reach an agreement. As he said, the current agreement does not run out until June this year. I am regularly updated about how those discussions are going. I know from my own constituency, which has been subject to regular flooding, just how important they are. I would also add that we have put in an extra £120 million in flood defences. I think everyone can now see that the flood defence work that has been done over recent years has made a significant difference when we have had high levels of rainfall and very high water in our rivers and streams.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Q11. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that disability benefits are being uprated as usual and will not be subject to changes?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Disability living allowance, which is the key benefit received by people who are disabled, is not subject to the 1% cap. The 1% cap is for in-work benefits. It is very important that we go on paying disability living allowance in the way that we have been.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q12. Can the Prime Minister confirm that my constituent, who is a nurse as well as a single father to his two children, will lose £400 a year as a result of the Chancellor’s cuts to child benefit and other benefits?
The Prime Minister
The results of the cuts to child benefit are that the best-off 15% of families in this country will no longer receive child benefit at all. That is what is going to happen. That saves around £2 billion a year. Again, Labour has now voted against £83 billion of welfare changes. I am afraid that the Opposition have to start filling in the blanks of where they are going to make up this money. I think it is right that we say to people earning £60,000, £70,000, £80,000 or more, “You shouldn’t be receiving child benefit.” It is not an easy decision, but government is about making decisions; and frankly, opposition is about making some decisions too.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Can I recommend that the Prime Minister takes a look at Monday’s excellent Back-Bench debate on corporate tax avoidance? Can I ask what he hopes to achieve on this vital issue at the G8?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look closely at the debate and read Hansard, because this is not just a vital issue for our country, but one that needs to be settled internationally. That is why I put the issue of corporate tax avoidance at the heart of the G8 this year, and we are also looking very closely at whatever else we can do here in the UK.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Q13. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), may I ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of families who are still unaware that they are no longer entitled to child benefit, particularly bearing in mind that the bill for the first full year’s charges will come wafting through the nation’s letterboxes in April 1915? [Interruption.] Sorry, 2015.
The Prime Minister
We have written out to 800,000 families. There has been a huge advertising campaign and this has been properly covered right across the media, but I have to say that it is absolutely extraordinary, in a week when Labour is complaining about difficult welfare decisions for people who are in work and people who are out of work, that Labour Members also want to make a priority of opposing taking away child benefit from people earning £100,000 or £150,000. They have really got to start taking some responsible decisions about how we deal with our deficit and get our economy under control.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the business men—the entrepreneurs—and the staff who work at the jobcentre in my constituency, whose efforts over the last two and a half years have ensured that unemployment in Selby and Ainsty is down by a quarter since the last election?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in that. The people in our jobcentres up and down the country do an excellent job helping people to find work and to make sure that they get all the help they need. The fact is that the unemployment rate today is lower than the rate that we inherited at the last election. Over the last year, job creation in Britain was faster than in any other G7 country. We still have a long way to go to rebalance our economy and to get the growth in the private sector that we need, but we are on the right track—1 million new private sector jobs over the last two years, the fastest rate of new business creation for decades. There are good signs that the economy is rebalancing. We need to encourage that by staying on top of our deficit and getting it down, rather than just giving in on every decision, as we have seen today from the Labour party.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Q14. According to the Children’s Society, up to 40,000 soldiers, 150,000 teachers and 300,000 nurses will lose out as a result of the Prime Minister’s decision to cut tax credits and other benefits. Why are hard-working people like that paying for his economic failure?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady needs to remember why we are having to take these decisions in the first place: it is to deal with the record budget deficit and the mess left by the Labour party. That is the background. The real question about public sector workers—about soldiers, about teachers and about people who work in our public services—is that if they are being restricted to a 1% increase, why on earth does the Labour party think that people on out-of-work benefits should see their incomes go up faster? That is the question that Labour has to answer. We are being fair, because we are restricting the increase on tax credits and restricting the increase on public sector pay, but we are also asking the same of those on out-of-work welfare. What we see as completely unfair is backing the public sector pay increase but wanting welfare to go through the roof. That is completely wrong, it is not fair and Labour must see that it has to change its mind.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Q15. Last week, I visited the T. H. White group in Devizes and heard about its healthy order book and its recruitment plans for 2013. Like many British employers, however, it cannot find enough engineers to hire. Britain’s universities lead the world in teaching science and engineering, yet we have an annual shortfall of 60,000 graduates, and nine out of 10 postgraduate students in those subjects are from overseas. What more can we do to plug that critical skills gap?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right: we have to tackle that problem at every level. That means making sure that we are teaching maths and science and other STEM subjects properly in schools. There are signs that the number of people taking those subjects is increasing. We need to ensure that our universities are properly funded; the tuition fees will make sure that that is the case. We also need to raise the profile of engineering, and that is one of the reasons that we introduced the £1 million Queen Elizabeth prize for engineering. That, combined with the 34 university technical colleges, will help to ensure that we train the engineers we need for the future.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is more important than ever that we seek to continue to move forward and away from violence in Northern Ireland, and to create stability. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that full participation in and support for the political and democratic process by everyone, so that the politicians can address the people’s issues, is absolutely vital. In that context, and in the light of what is happening in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister agree to meet us to discuss the forthcoming legislation on Northern Ireland, so that we can consider measures to increase democratic participation by people in deprived communities, look at the deplorable state of the electoral register in Northern Ireland, which is in a bad state, and deal with the discrimination against elected Members of this House from Northern Ireland who play by the rules while others get money without taking their seats? All of that needs to be addressed.
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have a meeting with a number of members of his party straight after Prime Minister’s questions to discuss the vital issue of ensuring that the military covenant is properly fulfilled in Northern Ireland. He made a number of points in his question. I would throw back part of the challenge to him and his party, just as I would to others in other parties, in saying that we need to build a shared future in Northern Ireland in which we break down the barriers of segregation that have been in place for many years. That is part of the challenge to take away some of the tensions that we have seen in recent days.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Just in case anybody is in any doubt, will the Prime Minister confirm who he is closest to, politically? Is it Lord Tebbit or the Deputy Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
I managed to get through Christmas without spending any time with either of them. I would remind my hon. Friend that I am closer to all Conservatives than I am to anyone from any other party.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health received a report recommending the downgrading of maternity services and the closure of the A and E department at Lewisham hospital. Does the Prime Minister recall the coalition promise to end the forced closures of A and E and maternity services? If this is not to be on the list of broken promises, will he ensure that these closures do not go ahead?
The Prime Minister
What the Government and I specifically promised was that there should be no closures or reorganisations unless they had support from the GP commissioners, unless there was proper public and patient engagement and unless there was an evidence base. Let me be absolutely clear: unlike under the last Government when these closures and changes were imposed in a top-down way, if they do not meet those criteria, they will not happen.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister will remember that this House gave the green light to stem cell research some years ago, but we now find that the EU Court of Justice is hindering progress by bringing into question the validity of the patents protecting research. On behalf of the millions of people in this country who suffer from long-term medical conditions, will the Prime Minister do what he can to clear this blockage?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely serious point. I will look closely at it, because I think this country has a competitive advantage from our having taken difficult decisions about stem cell research. It is important that we continue to lead in that area—not only, as my hon. Friend says, for economic and scientific reasons, but because we want to make sure that for people with long-term and debilitating conditions, for children with disabilities and other concerns, we crack those problems for the future. Without that level of research, I do not believe that we shall. I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend has said and I will write to him with an answer.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Prime Minister proud of the growth of food banks across this country, including in my constituency? Has he visited one, and if not, will he do so?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the fact that 1 million more people are in work in this country than there were when this Government came to office, that we have made sure that the lowest paid are not paying income tax and that we have protected the poorest families. I am proud of all those things. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not look down at, or talk down to, people who work hard in our communities to help people.
Transforming Rehabilitation
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the rehabilitation of offenders.
This Government are committed to an ambitious programme of social reform, even at a time of financial constraints. Major changes have already been delivered in welfare and education to tackle the challenge of endemic welfare dependency and educational underperformance, particularly in deprived areas. In the coalition agreement, the Government also promised
“to introduce a rehabilitation revolution”
to tackle the unacceptable cycle of reoffending, and today I am publishing a consultation paper entitled “Transforming Rehabilitation: a revolution in the way we manage offenders”. We need a tough but intelligent criminal justice system that both punishes people properly when they break the law and supports them to get their lives back on track so that they do not commit crime again in the future.
Despite significant increases in Government spending on offender management during the past decade, reoffending remains consistently and unacceptably high. In 2010, nearly half of prisoners were reconvicted within a year of release. This rate is even higher for short-sentenced prisoners, the great majority of whom currently receive little or no support.
Failing to divert offenders away from crime has a wide impact. The Ministry of Justice alone spent over £4 billion on prisons and offender management in 2011-12, and the wider cost of this failure is considerable. The National Audit Office estimated that the economic cost of reoffending by recent ex-prisoners was as much as £13 billion in 2007-08. I am clear that we cannot continue as before. In difficult economic times, delivering real reform requires a dramatically different approach. We cannot afford not to do this.
I propose to introduce a new emphasis on life management and mentoring support for offenders in order to address the problems that lead them to turn to crime time and again. For the first time, all offenders will be subject to mandatory supervision and tailored rehabilitation on their release from prison, including those serving sentences of less than 12 months. Those offenders have some of the highest reoffending rates, but there is currently no statutory provision after the halfway point of their sentences. I want to ensure that persistent offenders do not walk out of the prison gates with £46 in their pockets and little or nothing else.
My vision is very simple. When someone leaves prison, I want them already to have a mentor in place. I want them to be met at the prison gate, to have a place to live sorted out, and to have a package of support set up, be it training, drug treatment or an employability course. I also want them to have someone whom they can turn to as a wise friend as they turn their own lives around. I intend to open up the market for probation services, so that we can combine the expertise that exists in the public sector probation service with the innovation and dynamism of private and voluntary providers.
These radical reforms are underpinned by the principles of the big society. Enabling voluntary sector organisations to participate fully in the transforming of rehabilitation, harnessing their expertise, and making the most of existing local links will be vital to the delivery of the reductions in reoffending that we need to see. Providers will be commissioned to deliver community orders and licence requirements for the majority of offenders, and will be paid by results to reduce reoffending. They will be expected to tackle the causes of reoffending and help offenders to turn their lives around.
Through the introduction of payment by results, providers from all sectors will have a clear incentive to rehabilitate offenders. We will pay in full only for services that succeed in reducing reoffending. Services will be commissioned nationally, and delivered across broader geographical areas. I am committed to ensuring that the new system continues to make best use of local expertise, and to integrate itself into existing local structures. Potential providers will have to be clear about how they would sustain local partnerships in contracts, and commissioning will be informed by local intelligence.
Extending rehabilitation to more offenders will introduce new costs to the system, but I believe that they can be balanced by our drawing more providers into the system. Through increased use of competition, we can generate efficiency savings and drive down unit costs across the system, allowing our funding to go further.
The public sector probation service does an important job in protecting the public. The Government are very clear about the value and expertise that it brings, and we want to continue to use that expertise as we transform our approach to rehabilitation. There will be a continuing critical role for the public sector, which will include advising the courts and assessing the risk that an offender poses to the public. Offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm to the public will continue to be managed directly by the public sector, and the public sector will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection.
Transforming rehabilitation will help to ensure that all who are given prison or community sentences are properly punished, while also being helped to turn their back on crime for good. That will mean lower crime rates, fewer victims and safer communities. I commend my statement to the House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement.
It is universally agreed that we need to do more to reduce reoffending. Preventing offenders from going on to commit more crimes and create more innocent victims should be a priority for us all. Our probation service is the Cinderella of our criminal justice system. It has a low public profile, but is staffed by dedicated professionals who help keep our communities safe. In 2011 it was awarded the British Quality Foundation’s gold medal for excellence, and the performance of every single probation trust was rated by the present Government as either good or exceptional. The service has done all that the Government have asked it to do.
Let me begin by asking the Justice Secretary what he means by saying that he wants to professionalise the probation service. The probation service has been working in partnership with the private sector and voluntary groups for some time now, and I am sure the Justice Secretary will have seen some of the excellent work being done in partnership around the country from Avon and Somerset to Doncaster, and from Peterborough to Manchester. There is a place for all in our justice system, bringing in outside experience and innovation, and working together in partnership to reduce reoffending.
It is always worth looking for new ways to address the serious problem of reoffending, and that was the motivation behind the pilot that the last Labour Government began in Peterborough, which is a payment by results model. I suspect it is also why the Justice Secretary’s predecessor launched two PBR pilots in probation trusts. It is right to test and try out properly any fundamentally new way of working, and there is no history in criminal justice of payment by results. The Justice Secretary has chosen to cancel the two probation PBR pilots set up by his predecessor. Can he explain why? Did he do so because he has already made up his mind that PBR works, despite there being no evidence at present to support that view?
We know, however, from where PBR has been used in the provision of other public services—the Work programme—that it has failed to hit its targets, and the Justice Secretary knows all about that programme, of course. Out of 800,000 people who started the Work programme, only 3.5% were still in work after six months, and not a single provider hit the target. That is bad enough in the context of the Work programme, with people not getting jobs or failing to keep jobs, but in the context of criminal justice, failure could lead to offenders walking the streets without the necessary supervision and support, with the risk that poses to public safety. We are also seeing in respect of the Work programme that it is not the small and local charities that are delivering. They have been crowded out by the big multinationals such as G4S and A4e. How will the Justice Secretary ensure that that pattern is not repeated in probation services? The Justice Secretary is proposing that only low and medium-risk offenders will be dealt with by private companies, but can he confirm that medium-risk offenders include those who have committed burglary and violent crimes, including domestic violence?
One in four offenders’ risk levels fluctuate during their time on licence. How will the Justice Secretary ensure the PBR model will be able to take that into account? In that regard, how does he propose the police should share their sensitive information about offenders under their supervision with the private sector?
The Justice Secretary has also announced a 25% expansion in the number of offenders who will be subjected to mandatory supervision, at a time when his budget is shrinking by 25%. Is it not therefore inevitable that resources will have to be stretched ever more thinly to cover that increase in offenders, and can he assure the House that high and medium-risk offenders will get the appropriate supervision and support?
We are willing to work with the Government to reduce reoffending. We will carefully consider the Justice Secretary’s consultation document and the answers he gives in the House this afternoon, and we hope that the detail given will provide greater reassurance than his statements have so far.
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), for the elements of his statement that were supportive of what we are doing, and of course I should thank the Labour party, because it is only thanks to legislation introduced by the Labour Government prior to 2010 that I am able to make such an important reform for this country. I should also pay tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who established the Peterborough pilot. The work being done in Peterborough prison by the team involving the St Giles Trust—I met representatives from the trust this morning—and other charities working in partnership with the private sector is an impressive example of what can be done in mentoring offenders.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned pilots. The last Government were obsessed with pilots. Sometimes those in government just have to believe in something and do it, but the last Government set out a pilot timetable under which it would have taken about eight years to get from the beginning of the process to the point of evaluation and then beyond. Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it, and I assure Members that if they went to Peterborough to see what is being done there, they would think it was the right thing to do.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Work programme, and I wish he would stop using statistics that are certainly not entirely—[Interruption.] I am not sure how to describe them; “misleading” might be inappropriate language to use. The Opposition keep missing an important point: in the Work programme, we do not pay until someone has been in work for more than six months. So if 800,000 people joined the Work programme in the first year, half of them could not have been in work for six months. The reality is that the Work programme has so far helped 200,000 people find jobs. Many of those people have been in jobs for the short term and have then gone on to second jobs, and many of them have gone into long-term employment. The programme is making a real difference, and I defy any Member of the House to visit a Work programme centre, see the work that is being done and not come away impressed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman mentions G4S. It is true that G4S is one of the prime contractors in the Work programme, but interestingly, it subcontracts all its work in the Work programme to voluntary sector organisations and small businesses. The Work programme is the biggest voluntary sector welfare-to-work programme that this country has ever seen, with organisations such as the Papworth Trust delivering support right across East Anglia and organisations such as the Careers Development Group involved. That charitable organisation is running large parts of the Work programme in London. Labour Members need to look at the detail of what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman made a sensible point and asked a sensible question about the management of and fluctuation in risk. We intend the public probation service to work closely with local providers, and where there is a variation in risk—where it suddenly becomes clear that an individual represents a clear and present danger of harm to the public—the mechanisms will exist to move those people back under the public sector umbrella. So the public sector will continue to work with the most serious offenders, through the multi-agency public protection arrangements and similar, and the police will continue to work closely with the public sector on the most serious offenders. Where there is a clear and present risk to the public, it is the duty of the public probation service and of this Government—and it will continue to be so—to make sure that we supervise and manage that risk, and that intelligence is shared between the police and the public probation service to manage the risk that exists, when it does exist, because we must ensure that the public are protected.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of cost, and I simply offer him one example of where efficiencies can be delivered. When we contracted out the delivery of community sentences in London, the cost of delivering those sentences fell by nearly 40%. I am absolutely certain that although very good work is being and will continue to be done in the probation service, and those professionals will continue to work in this field, there are efficiencies to be found. Such efficiencies can be reinvested in providing support to those prisoners whose sentence is less than 12 months, who have never had it before.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the more difficult offenders. I wish to make it absolutely clear, as our consultation document does, that we will have a pricing mechanism that makes it impossible for providers simply not to support the most difficult prisoners. Every prisoner must have support. We are delivering support that is mandated by the courts for every prisoner, and that will be continued.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
These proposals, which will greatly increase the potential for offender managers to deliver rehabilitation, should mean that probation officers will be employed by many different types of organisation. Indeed, it will be vital for the success of these reforms that probation officers at all levels of experience are found in the remaining public sector organisations and in the new delivery organisations. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that he strengthens the corporate identity, and the training and academic underpinning of probation as a profession, so that there is a strong base for our excellent probation officers and their profession, wherever they are deployed?
Chris Grayling
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend. There is a slight myth in the media that we arrived in the Department in September and nothing had been done before, but that is totally untrue; I have inherited some very good work done by him and his colleagues, which created the foundation for these reforms. Indeed, he and I worked closely together in providing employment support to prisoners through the Work programme. It is very important that we ensure that we have the best possible professional standards. I apologise here, because the point was raised by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). One of the questions I have for the probation profession is: should we facilitate the creation of some sort of chartered institute that raises professional standards in the profession? It will continue to be an important profession, with high-level specialist skills needed to manage the most serious risk. I am also ensuring, through these proposals, that existing probation staff have the opportunity to set up social enterprises and mutuals, so that they themselves have the opportunity to be part of the future.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working with the private and voluntary sectors in the justice system; I did it when I was the Justice Minister. I have two questions to put to the Secretary of State, if I may. First, on resilience, how does he know that the organisations with these contracts, like G4S in the Olympics, will be able to deliver? Secondly, on accountability, things will go wrong in the justice system, cases will be disastrous and things will be serious. Who will ultimately be accountable to this House and to the public for the errors and mistakes?
Chris Grayling
The simple answer to the latter point is that responsibility will continue to lie with the public probation service and, ultimately, the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman and I know that in any system with a rate of reoffending there will be further crimes, whether a public, private or voluntary sector provider does the work. I want to ensure that the level of reoffending continues to go down and that we try every means at our disposal. The payment-by-results regime opens the way to innovation to ensure that we do the best possible job in ensuring that people do not reoffend.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Although I understand the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for getting on with the job without waiting for more pilots, a decision that some of his advisers might have called courageous, may I ask him to pay particular personal attention to ensuring that charities and voluntary organisations with a track record are not crowded out by how contracts are let? Will he also consider whether he should expand the role of the chief inspector of probation so that quality control over the whole of the provision is maintained?
Chris Grayling
The latter point is an important one and I rather agree with my right hon. Friend on that. I look forward to having discussions with him and his Committee about it. I am also strongly supportive of the voluntary sector. It is simply not the case, even though the Opposition keep saying that it is, that the voluntary sector is not involved in the Work programme. That programme supports well over 100,000 people in the voluntary sector, using the real expertise of small and larger organisations such as the Papworth Trust and the Salvation Army. I want to see more of that in this process.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State about accountability to the courts? When a medium or low-risk offender is on a programme run by a private company and fails to keep to the conditions of that order, who will make the decision to return that offender to the court? Will it be the private company, which clearly has an interest in a successful outcome to the programme, or will it be a probation officer?
Chris Grayling
It will be a probation officer. I expect to have in every centre a seconded or attached probation officer who will be responsible for enforcing the legal side of things. In much the same way as happens in the Work programme, where Jobcentre Plus does the sanctioning, it will be a contractual duty of providers to report a breach but it will be the job of the public probation service to decide how to respond and whether to refer it to court or do something else.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I welcome. Does he agree that the most effective support for former prisoners can be given by those with whom they have developed a relationship of trust—a relationship that has been developed not just over the days or weeks prior to release but over a longer period of time—and that that is particularly the case for young offenders? In light of that, will he consider how support can be given to the excellent restorative justice work done with young men by the Sycamore Tree project at Thorn Cross young offenders institution in Cheshire?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. I look forward to visiting Thorn Cross at some point. I visited some years ago when, as my hon. Friend knows, I was the candidate in Warrington South. It is a very good centre and I look forward to visiting it again in the not-too-distant future. I absolutely believe that the role of such local projects is very important. I am often asked why crime is coming down. I think that one of the reasons is that all around the country real efforts are being made by the voluntary sector and the community sector to engage with young people who might otherwise re-engage with or embark on a life of crime.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and I recently had the opportunity to visit the probation service in Greater Manchester, where we saw the programme to deal with some of the most dangerous individuals—that is, people who had been convicted of terrorist offences who will be released over the next few years. The work being done to reintegrate them into the community and to de-radicalise them—very specialised work indeed—was first rate and very professional. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that in the case of such prisoners—ex-terrorist offenders—the community will be kept safe and that vital reintegration and de-radicalisation work will continue?
Chris Grayling
I can absolutely do that. I envisage no change, unless it is an improvement, to how we manage offenders such as former terrorists in the community. They would fall under the high-risk umbrella and I would expect that work to continue in the public sector, where it takes place at the moment. I pay tribute to Greater Manchester probation trust, which is among the most innovative and entrepreneurial of the probation trusts. I have little doubt that some of the people in that trust will see the opportunity to create a mutual or co-operative. In the spirit of the Labour party and the co-operative movement, this is a great opportunity for a new generation of co-operatives to emerge and I want to see staff participating in the future.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is difficult and challenging to rehabilitate hardened drug addicts? Does he share my concern that many young people are going into prison as mild drug users but coming out as addicts? Why are there still so many drugs available in our prisons and what is he doing about it?
Chris Grayling
That is a concern that I and the prisons Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), share. We have done quite a bit of work on it already, but we are up against a determined effort to get drugs into prison; some of the means used to smuggle drugs into prison are quite eye-catching. We will do everything we can to reduce the availability of drugs in prisons, but when someone comes out, if they have had some form of rehabilitation in prison I want to see that continue in the community. The structure of these reforms and the through-the-gate approach will make it much more likely that we have consistent rehabilitation through prison and beyond.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The last report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, entitled, “Drugs: Breaking the Cycle”, pointed out that 35% of those coming out of prisons had a drugs problem. I support the principle of what the Secretary of State has said today, but will he be able to choose the expertise in dealing with drugs of those organisations that will help with his rehabilitation revolution? Not just any organisation can deal with drugs; those people must be experienced in helping people once they have come out of prison.
Chris Grayling
That is why not just any organisation with cash in the bank will be able to come in and win the contracts. I want to see expertise and understanding of how to bring in the different services that are available. They should be able to bring in the drug rehabilitation services funded by the Department of Health and deal with the local college, ensuring that prisoners are on training courses. The people who do this work must have a joined-up understanding of what needs to be done, otherwise we would not work with them.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he give me an assurance that those who will now be responsible for rehabilitation will give high priority to getting prisoners working while they are serving their sentences and into jobs when they have completed their sentences?
Chris Grayling
I intend to continue the work done by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, on increasing the amount of work done in prisons. He has done good work in extending that already and it is particularly important that that work continues after prison. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and I worked hard to ensure that prisoners who came out of jail entered the Work programme on day one and started to get back-to-work support straight away. I want to see an integration of support that not only delivers the life management and mentoring I have discussed today but ensures that we provide proper back-to-work support for offenders alongside that, as that is the best way of stopping them reoffending.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
During his statement, the Secretary of State said that sometimes we must believe that something will work rather than having a pilot. That same Secretary of State believes that we should drastically increase electronic tagging, despite his own impact assessment saying that that will have no impact on reoffending. Should we take the consultation seriously?
Chris Grayling
I would simply invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit his own probation trust in Wales, which is one of the trusts trialling GPS tagging. I can see real benefits in that tagging. We are considering it and we are recontracting tagging contracts at the moment. I think that GPS tagging offers a new dimension for our community justice system that will help sometimes to protect offenders and sometimes to deal with offenders who are doing things that they should not be doing.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the Justice Secretary agree that it is simply astonishing that there has not been rehabilitation support for the roughly 50,000 a year whose sentences are less than 12 months? They have a reoffending rate of about 60% and I congratulate him on the fact that this Government will finally address the issue, helping them back into society and reducing reoffending.
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is baffling that over all the years of plenty for which Labour was in power, this is something Labour never did. We have an extraordinary situation with thousands and thousands of offenders who leave prison with £46 in their pocket and nothing else, and with no support, and a huge proportion of them reoffend. I am determined to change that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Government talk a lot about evidence-based policy making. Will the Secretary of State tell me why we are not having pilots to see whether the reform will work?
Chris Grayling
I simply invite the hon. Lady to look at the work done in Peterborough and by voluntary sector organisations to mentor offenders. Sometimes when we look at something, we can say, “That is the right thing to do.” That is what we are doing.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to drug treatment. Does he share my concern that, in the past 10 years, there has been a 165% increase in methadone maintenance prescriptions in prisons but a 30% reduction in detoxification procedures? Will he commit today to making rehabilitation and recovery a key and central part of his plans?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely give that commitment. One problem has been that if prisoners who are in prison for a short time have no support after they leave, all prisons can do while they are inside is to stabilise the situation. When there is through-the-gate rehabilitation, with somebody waiting to ensure that rehab continues in the community, we have a much better chance of addressing the issues to which my hon. Friend refers.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The probation service is staffed by highly qualified, professional, extremely dedicated and hard-working people. Medium-risk cases can be complex and serious in their consequences. The public will be concerned that the same levels of qualification and professionalism should apply to supervision. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the same level of qualifications and experience will apply to probation officers in the voluntary and private sectors?
Chris Grayling
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands what we are trying to achieve. We need the qualifications and experience to protect the public from harm, but in my view the former offender turned good—the former gang member gone straight—is the best way of making sure that a young person coming out of jail does not go back to the same ways. This is about getting a mix of high qualifications, of the kind we find in our public probation service, in people who have turned away from crime and who are helping those who might end up in a place where they once were.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my historic interest in social investment.
I welcome the opportunity for charities and social enterprises to get more involved in this area. Payment by results is very hard on working capital. Will the Secretary of State outline what his Department is doing to increase access to finance for charities and social enterprises—for example, the nascent social impact bond sector?
Chris Grayling
Let me start by saying that I do not expect this to be a 100% payment-by-results contract. There is a need to enforce orders of the court, so I do not expect to be able to put 100% of the fees that we pay on a payment-by-results outcome basis. However, I do want providers to be at risk; I want them to have their money on the table to deliver excellence for us, but I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point. That approach will make the cash flow situation less challenging than it would be in a 100% situation.
I have already held and will continue to hold meetings with people in the social investment sector to encourage them to look at the measure as a real opportunity. This is the kind of area in which social investment in this country should be involved. There is a clear public benefit and the possibility of earning a return. I absolutely hope and believe that our social investment sector will row in behind it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State was explicit in saying that we could not afford not to do this. Can he be equally explicit about the primary focus of the consultation exercise? Is the measure about a reduction in reoffending or a reduction in expenditure?
Chris Grayling
This is absolutely about a reduction in reoffending. I have believed for a while that we should carry out this measure. I was particularly pleased when the Prime Minister invited me to take my current position. I absolutely believe that I should try to lead with the reform, and the Prime Minister is absolutely behind it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in some parts of the United Kingdom, such matters are devolved; I hope that we are setting an example that others will choose to follow.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for fulfilling another manifesto promise in this rehabilitation revolution. Will we be following the great model of the National Grid young offender programme, which moves people into work? Its reoffending rates are in single digits, in contrast to the unacceptable rates nationally. Can we follow through with that model and replicate it across the country, so that we have a conveyer belt not into crime but into employment?
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to the work done not only by National Grid but many other companies in this area. I have visited the Timpson’s workshop, which involves the father of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). It is a first-class facility in Liverpool jail of the kind that I would like to see more of. The more that we can engage the private sector in helping offenders make the transition from prison into employment, the better. I pay tribute to all those organisations, and particularly National Grid.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to look at the gap between a person leaving through the prison gate and finally being picked up by the authorities, and to close that gap; it is a key vulnerability when it comes to reoffending. Will he also look downstream at creating programmes that will help social and emotional capability to be developed within prisons before people are released? As he has converted to co-operatives, will he extend the Whitehall co-operative to health and education, so that offending behaviours are addressed way earlier and potential offenders do not go to prison in the first place?
Chris Grayling
The latter point is important, and I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I pay tribute to his work in establishing the Early Intervention Foundation. The way in which he works across the House is a good example of Parliament setting aside politics and coming together in the interests of the country. I assure him that we will continue to look for different ways of working.
I see social challenges as a jigsaw puzzle. We are reforming welfare and education, and we have the troubled families programme and an increased focus on early intervention. Today I am trying to put in another piece of that jigsaw. The hon. Gentleman and I know that the problems will not be solved overnight, but if we do not move things in the right direction, we will never solve them. I hope and believe that the measure is one part of doing that.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), we should change the attitude towards reoffending while offenders are in prison. Should we not have modern and efficient prisons rather than Victorian ones? Would it not be a good idea to reopen Wellingborough prison—a modern prison and the third cheapest in the country to run?
Chris Grayling
I congratulate my hon. Friend on continuing to be a first-rate advocate for his constituency. He knows that my strategy is to modernise the prison estate as fast as resources allow; it is clearly both cheaper and better if prisoners are in more modern prisons. I will have more to say about that as time goes by. We have had extensive discussions about Wellingborough prison and its site. My answer is never say never, but he will know the nature of the challenges that we face and how we are trying to address them.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
One of the busiest places in prison is the gym. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at how sports can help to reduce reoffending. Will he look at the boxing project in Doncaster prison? It teaches offenders to get involved in boxing and uses boxing coaches. Unfortunately, it has had to be stopped because of a change in the guidelines on boxing in prisons. I understand some of the problems, but the scheme is great and people get jobs at the end of the course.
Chris Grayling
I can give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the project to which he refers. I have seen a number of projects around the country in which boxing is used as a way of engaging young people. I have no problem with that happening in our prisons. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam is writing to the hon. Gentleman to say that we are happy for the project to go ahead; our only caveat relates to violent offenders. We are happy to see the project continue as a way of engaging non-violent offenders.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Justice Secretary on having the vision to have every offender met at the prison gates with somewhere to live and a proper package of support. There was certainly a pilot under the last Government—giving offenders £46 and little else. We have seen where that ended up.
Will the Secretary of State outline the number of offenders who have problems with alcohol? Will he reassure me that alcohol will be given the same priority as drugs as offenders leave prison?
Chris Grayling
About three quarters of prisoners have an addiction problem, a mental health problem or both. About half of prisoners have had some form of addiction problem. That is a real challenge, which colleagues at the Home Office are looking at closely as well. There are new mechanisms to monitor and help and support those with alcohol problems. I accept that it is a real issue, which I hope and expect mentors working with prisoners to address if they work with people with an addiction challenge.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the consultation. As one who in a previous life spent four years as Roy Hattersley’s deputy working on our party’s policy in this area, I can say that most Governments have failed to get the issue right. However, I did learn at that time that we must pay careful attention to how many people we put in prison and what we do with people in prison—education and skills training is still absolutely pathetic. Lastly, when a prisoner comes out, he needs the full package of support—housing, education, a job and everything else. Highly skilled people are needed to help make that happen.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree. We are doing this through a consultation document rather than simply arriving with a final blueprint—I am setting a direction of travel but I am not saying that every detail is finalised—to offer people in this House and outside an opportunity to say, “You want to do that, but if you tweak this a bit it might be better.” I hope that over the next two or three months we can look at that feedback, digest it, and help to hone the final package in a way that gives us the maximum opportunity of working with and using the expertise of people such as the hon. Gentleman who have been here and done this.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate the extensive interest in this important statement, but I remind the House that this is an Opposition day with significantly subscribed debates to follow. Therefore, if I am to succeed in my mission to accommodate colleagues I require their help in the form of succinct questions, an object lesson in which will now be provided, I feel sure, by Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I warmly support the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s proposals, but the thorny issue is about what constitutes a successful outcome on payment by results. I have met people in the probation service who think that reducing reoffending from 10 burglaries a month to two is a success. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will not be considered a success and that only no reoffending will be considered a successful outcome?
Chris Grayling
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that I will not be rewarding people for someone burgling a few houses rather than a lot of houses.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The moment at which the probation service has been commended for its effective performance is an odd one for the Secretary of State to choose to put his foot on the accelerator. What is his estimate of the number of probation officers who will be made redundant, what is the anticipated cost of that, and does he have an agreed budget for it from the Treasury?
Chris Grayling
I do not expect this to lead to wholesale redundancies in the probation service. It certainly means a new world for many people in the probation service in being part of the new organisations, new social enterprises and new consortia that will deliver the services. Yes, of course there will be some changes, but this does not involve, suddenly and instantly, mass redundancies in the probation service—that would not be right.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Of the 50,000 prisoners on short-term sentences who are released each year, a growing proportion are EU and other foreign nationals. These people do not deserve rehabilitation; they deserve deportation. Will my right hon. Friend dig deep within the security provisions of the EU free movement directive to ensure that if any EU national commits an imprisonable offence in this country, of whatever sentence length, they are deported on release and barred from returning to this country?
Chris Grayling
I agree with every single word that my hon. Friend said. We have far too many foreign national prisoners in our jails. The challenge of returning them, of course, is that there has to be somebody willing to take them at the other end—I am not willing simply to release criminals on to the streets. I absolutely agree that we need to be able to return prisoners as quickly as possible. I intend to do everything I can to use the prisoner transfer agreement, which more and more countries are now ratifying, as much as possible to return offenders to other countries, and to do everything I can, with my hon. Friends in the Home Office, to make sure that they do not come back.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The practical effect of the Work programme in Wrexham is that local charitable organisations have been excluded from providing services, and some of them have closed. Will the Secretary of State impose a contractual condition that local charitable organisations should be involved in the provision of services for the new scheme?
Chris Grayling
It depends on what works. There are very good charities delivering excellent services for this country. There are charities that do good and noble work but are less good at the jobs they do. What matters to me is that we have the organisations that do the best job. In the Work programme we will find excellent organisations in the charitable sector doing first-rate work and excellent private organisations doing first-rate work, and I would like to have the best of both.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I strongly welcome what the Secretary of State has said. Will he look not only at the amount of money that prisoners get on release but the monetary form in which it is given to them? I am concerned that many prisoners are given the money in cash form and go immediately to the nearest town to use it to purchase inappropriate goods such as alcohol that damage the essential stability of their first 48 hours post-release when they need to set a good pattern of behaviour.
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. Another problem in the system was that up until a few months ago prisoners could not even sign on for benefits for a week after release, which left a huge hole in their finances and caused a lot of reoffending. I addressed that when I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. We have to make sure that the environment is right when prisoners are released. If they are met by a mentor at the gate who then sorts out their lives, showing them where they are going to live and making sure that they are signed on to benefits, I hope that their time to go down the pub will be much diminished.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Changing human behaviour is a complex business, and I have been very impressed by the work going on across agencies in the Scunthorpe area to reduce reoffending, particularly when it is related to alcohol and drugs misuse. Changing what is going on puts at risk those sorts of activities. Why is the Secretary of State allowing only six weeks for this consultation when it is so important to get it right?
Chris Grayling
This is an iterative process. We have a formal consultation period of six weeks. We carried out a consultation on the future of probation last year, and this is an updated consultation. We are going to carry on listening to Members across the House. It will take us a few more months to hone and finalise our final package, and we will look at what works. If the best idea comes in half an hour before we finalise it, then that is fine. I want to make sure that what we have is what works.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
While I recognise that the Secretary of State’s proposals seek to ensure that ex-prisoners make a success of their lives once they are released, I want to return to the matter of those who enter prison with a drug problem. Has he managed to call a complete halt to the practice of retoxifying prisoners prior to release when the Prison Service has taken the trouble to detoxify them at the beginning of their sentences?
Chris Grayling
We will do everything we can to do that. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, is looking very hard at the whole issue of how we manage drugs in prisons and the nature of such rehabilitation. As a result of these reforms, I hope that we will end up not only dealing with the question of retoxification but identifying problems, starting rehab in prison and continuing it post-prison, and getting prisoners off drugs altogether.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Some parallels have been drawn between this plan and the Work programme. One of the problems with the Work programme is that minimal information is available from some of the private providers, and they are not subject to freedom of information requests. How will this be different?
Chris Grayling
I am working on reforms to FOI at the moment. We will try to be as transparent as possible. The hon. Lady has to remember, although she is not guilty of this, that over the past couple of years I have been regularly attacked by Labour Members about the use of national statistics. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand the information in advance and then want me to conform to national statistics rules. We will publish data as soon as we are able to do so, under the guidance of our statisticians, and we will be as transparent as possible over all this.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
In welcoming this statement, may I ask the Secretary of State to expand on one aspect of it? He said, “Services will be commissioned nationally”, but he also said that he is committed to ensuring that the new system will make the best use of local expertise. In an area such as West Mercia, where our probation service has a strong record of working with the voluntary sector, how can we ensure that the existing relationships are expanded and improved on rather than discarded and replaced?
Chris Grayling
One of the things I intend to write into the tender documents when the time comes is a requirement for the bidder to demonstrate that they are capable of maintaining and developing these local partnerships, which are crucial. In an area such as integrated offender management, for example, it is essential to maintain those close links. The point made in the document is that it is not practical to commission a contract of this kind on a fragmented basis. Trying to have 15, 20 or 30 small payment-by-results contracts around the country, locally commissioned, would be unbelievably complex and take an inordinate amount of time to administer, and the expertise is not really there to deliver that. We will commission nationally but the delivery will be as local as possible.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
This statement seems to be driven more by extremist right-wing ideology than by any empirical evidence, because the Secretary of State acknowledged that the public sector is best placed to deliver public safety. Is he planning to allow the police to share intelligence with G4S and other private providers?
Chris Grayling
I know that the Labour party is going through an identity crisis at the moment, and the hon. Gentleman may be in the wrong party, but if I am not mistaken the Peterborough pilot was started by Labour and the legislation that allows me to do this was passed by Labour, so does he support what his party did, or not?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the extension of rehabilitation to more offenders. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, a place to live on release is vital. Will capital funding be available to assist in the development of such, sometimes specialist, housing?
Chris Grayling
This is an important issue that was raised with me this morning by the probation trust chairs. Of course, we provide a number of specialist accommodation blocks already. As part of the work we do over the next two or three months, we need to look at exactly how we ensure that the right vehicles are available to address accommodation needs. I want to see what I saw this morning at St Giles Trust, which has a small team of professionals who are very good at finding young people who are out of prison somewhere to live and stabilising their lives.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I want to press the Justice Secretary on something. On his watch, the Government have cancelled the probation service’s payment-by-results pilots before we have heard the evidence. Is not risk to the public increased when we do not have the results of those pilots?
Chris Grayling
I sat through a decade in opposition watching the previous Government so often piloting something, with nothing ever happening. The number of pilots that the Labour Government went through in office was endless. There is something in the work that is being done in Peterborough and the voluntary sector that I want to capture now, not in a decade’s time.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In my constituency, Royal British Legion Industries is doing a great job in getting people back into employment through the Work programme. Does the Secretary of State envisage organisations such as RBLI helping, in particular, ex-service personnel who are former offenders to be rehabilitated?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely hope that RBLI will be one of the organisations that will come forward. It is an example of practical delivery of the Work programme by the voluntary sector on the ground, contrary to what we sometimes hear. There is a particular challenge in dealing with the number of ex-service people in our prisons. The more expertise we can bring to bear on that, the better.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned in passing the importance of mental health in prison and the number of prisoners who suffer from mental health problems. I am sure that he understands the need for significant support, both in prison and after, in reducing reoffending among that group. Will he confirm that counselling and other services for those with mental health problems will get the priority they need, both in prison and after, as a result of these changes?
Chris Grayling
The support in prisons for mental health is substantially provided by the national health service. We have to make sure that what starts in prison carries on after prison, but one of the flaws in the current system is that it does not work very well in that respect. I hope that, by creating a service that is much more through the gate and by addressing the life-management of offenders as they move through prison and afterwards, there will be continuity in the delivery of those services and that a mentor will look three months ahead and say, “Prisoner X is coming out and needs to carry on with their counselling service. I will make sure that happens.”
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that in 2010 and 2012 only 56% of those on drug treatment and testing orders completed them. Will he clarify and confirm what further steps will be taken to ensure that those who are on such orders fully complete them?
Chris Grayling
I intend to legislate in the near future to ensure that, when we do this, the court has the power to require people who have short sentences to go through rehabilitation programmes. It is important that we have a system whereby if someone who has a drug problem has a short sentence and is released from jail having started rehab there, that rehab will carry on and they will be required to do it. That will be the case.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary will be well aware of the special experiences and needs of women in the criminal justice system. There are already some excellent programmes supporting women offenders, such as the women matter programme in Greater Manchester. Will the Justice Secretary assure me that he will use the consultation period to reflect carefully on how a payment-by-results method will need to be adapted to meet the particular needs of women offenders?
Chris Grayling
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has responsibility for women in prisons, and I are looking at the issue. There are different challenges for adult males, young people and women in prisons, and we need to be careful and ensure that we approach each of those groups with an appropriate understanding of the different circumstances in which they find themselves.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Justice Secretary has rightly said that the failure to divert people away from crime is having a wide impact and he has mentioned life management. Will he confirm that he recognises that the transformative impact that we could have includes focusing on early years work at primary school, and even before that, with professionals such as speech and language therapists and, probably even more importantly, good parenting specialists?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely accept that. That is why I said that I see meeting the social challenge we face as a jigsaw puzzle. Different pieces, whether they be intervention to work with troubled families, health visitors in the home, guidance for young lone parents or helping offenders who are long-term unemployed, are all part of a broad-ranging challenge that I believe will, as time goes by, deliver real change in our society.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Northamptonshire has the lowest reoffending rate in the country, despite the chaotic circumstances that prevail. That is a tribute to the local probation officers in my area. They are concerned that this ideological move is being rushed through without proper thought for the circumstances and that it has not been properly tried, tested or evidenced. The real concern is that the Justice Secretary is not like a shopkeeper gambling on a new line of stock; he is dealing with public protection. What is his response to the comments of Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, who says that this move will compromise public protection?
Chris Grayling
I do not agree with Harry Fletcher. I am making sure that, when it comes to risk of harm to the public, that remains in the public sector and will continue to do so.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I pay tribute to the probation service for its work in my constituency, a very rural and sparsely populated area. What thought has the Secretary of State given to how these proposals will be carried out in such areas, which lack the presence of private sector and charitable organisations with the necessary skills to carry out rehabilitation?
Chris Grayling
The probation service in Wales has been one of the most innovative in doing this and has, in fact, in the past few months produced a blueprint on how this could happen in Wales, following a similar model to the one I have set out today. I fully expect to see members of the Wales probation team at the forefront of creating either mutuals or co-operatives to deliver the services. I pay tribute to the Wales probation trust, which is imaginative and innovative and has some great ideas to do precisely what my hon. Friend is talking about in difficult areas where communities in rural areas are spread out.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. Often, small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary providers are put off applying for Government contracts because of the complexity of the process involved. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make the application process to run probation services as straightforward as possible in order to maximise the number of applicants?
Chris Grayling
I can give that assurance. One of the things that I have learned from the contracting of the Work programme is to try to make the process as simple as possible for small organisations. I am not sure that we did it as effectively as we could have then, but we will certainly do so this time.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Along with many other Members, I greatly welcome the statement. Will my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor join me in commending the governor of HMP Shrewsbury, Mr Gerry Hendry, on giving the very highest priority to finding places for prisoners on release to live and work? He has demonstrated clearly that rehabilitation works, because reoffending has fallen greatly.
Chris Grayling
I indeed pay tribute to the work not just there, but across the prison service. We have some first-rate professionals in the probation service who have a strong future in delivering support to offenders in our communities, whether as part of a high-quality, specialist public sector probation service or, indeed, as part of one of the new generation of organisations.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
The Labour party suggests that there is no evidence on mentoring. I spent the past 12 months studying that particular issue for my book, “Doing Time”, which, amazingly, is still available in shops. The fact of the matter is that the Labour party introduced custody plus in 2004 to 2007 on this exact issue, but it did not follow it through. It is this coalition that has the guts and determination to address the crucial bridge between prison and release.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. There is enormous expertise in this field in the House and I hope that all Members will feel able to take part in the consultation. The Labour party introduced power after power, scheme after scheme and pilot after pilot, often for PR purposes, but seldom did anything.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor rightly reminded us in his statement that the criminal justice system must both punish offenders and seek to rehabilitate them, but will he acknowledge that many of our constituents doubt that we have got the balance right? Will he reassure us, and is he confident, that his proposals will achieve outcomes that will increase public confidence?
Chris Grayling
I hope and believe so. The reality is that, whether we are the hardest hard-liner or the softest liberal on crime, we all have an interest in preventing reoffending. I understand where my hon. Friend and his constituents are coming from. That is why we have taken steps such as increasing the protection that householders receive if they meet an intruder in their home, introducing a mandatory life sentence for a second-time serious sexual or violent offender, and introducing a mandatory punishment to every community sentence. We will take further measures that will restore and rebuild the public confidence in the criminal justice system that was so lacking when we inherited it.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State and other colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled 45 Back Benchers to question him in 41 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time.
Points of Order
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
“The irregular use of the Queen’s name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle”.
You will know that, Mr Speaker, because it says so on page 440 of “Erskine May”. Will you confirm that that will apply to consideration of the Succession to the Crown Bill? Earlier, the Father of the House and the Prime Minister came perilously close—though they are wily birds and did not step over the line—to praying Her Majesty’s opinion in aid. Will you also confirm that if, on Second Reading, the Government signify that Her Majesty has consented to place her prerogative at our disposal, that will signify neither her approval nor disapproval of the Bill, the contents of the Bill or any amendments that may be considered in this House, but that it will be entirely for us to decide how to proceed?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I think I can offer the hon. Gentleman the comfort and assurance he seeks. I am grateful for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I listened carefully to the exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions and I did not think that they offended against our rule against the use of the sovereign’s name to influence debate. I took the question to be primarily a factual one which, as “Erskine May” notes on page 441, is perfectly orderly.
When the House comes to debate the Succession to the Crown Bill, the Chair will be alert to ensure that the guidance on using the name of the Queen or the names of other members of the royal family to influence debate, which is indeed set out on page 440 of “Erskine May”, is borne carefully in mind. The question of Queen’s consent is a separate matter. Page 2430 of the Order Paper on the House’s future business notes that consent is to be signified before the House embarks on the Second Reading debate. That is a technical issue when the Queen’s prerogative or interest may be thought to be engaged in a proposed measure. It simply confirms that the House has the freedom to legislate as it sees fit; it does not in any way convey the personal view of the sovereign.
I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that on two occasions, the names of the fallen in Afghanistan were not announced at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but were announced publicly on a Wednesday and a Tuesday. After protests from the House, the practice of announcing the names at Prime Minister’s Question Time was restored. You may have noticed today that the name of the soldier who was tragically killed recently in Afghanistan was not announced at Prime Minister’s Question Time. There may be a good reason for that, but the press states that the family have been informed. Will you ensure that this practice is resumed, so that we can be reminded of the true cost of war?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not have notice of his point of order, although I make no complaint about that. I do not claim to be entirely sighted on the subject. To my knowledge, the name has not been publicly disclosed. That is one possible explanation. His wider point, to which he and others attach great importance, was made forcefully and I hope that it will be noted in the appropriate quarters.
Children (Performances) Regulations 1968 (Amendment)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children (Performances) Regulations 1968 to streamline opportunities for children to take part in performances; to reduce unnecessary regulation; to clarify when a licence is required; to strengthen the emphasis on protecting children; and for connected purposes.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, which, among other things, brought in a system of regulating child performances. That was a welcome innovation to promote the ability of children to pursue their talents and strut their stuff in a safe and beneficial way, and it resulted in a comprehensive set of regulations that came into force in 1968.
Fifty years on, that legislation needs updating. Back in the 1960s, we had only three terrestrial TV channels, whereas today we have hundreds of satellite and cable stations. “Britain’s Got Talent”, “The X Factor” and the explosion in so-called reality TV over the past 15 years or so were then just a figment of the imagination. The internet had not been invented. Ofcom was not regulating. Criminal Records Bureau checks were not being made. Jimmy Savile had almost been beatified. We therefore need the safeguards to be brought well and truly into the 21st century.
The ongoing revelations in the wake of the Savile allegations have made it all the more urgent to make this system fit for purpose and to ensure that children can pursue their talents safely. Parents need to be assured that their children will not fall into the clutches of predators, nor be exploited by over-zealous producers and broadcasters. Although in most cases we should ultimately trust parents to know what is best for their children, we need safeguards against the few particularly pushy parents who think their six-year-olds are emotionally robust enough to debut on a stage in front of millions of prime-time viewers or to do the rounds of those rather cheesy child beauty pageants that seem to have crept across the Atlantic.
I pursued this matter as Minister for children at the Department for Education, but was not able to persuade the powers that be to include it in the forthcoming legislation. I am hence promoting this stand-alone Bill today. However, I see no reason why it could not still be incorporated into the forthcoming children and families Bill. Much of the groundwork has been done and I believe that the provisions will be widely supported across the entertainment industry and across the political divide.
The last Government commissioned Sarah Thane, the respected former chairman of the Royal Television Society, to undertake an exploratory systemic review, which was published in March 2010. Following work that we had done in opposition, I picked up the recommendations in her excellent report. Within the Department for Education, I consulted widely through working groups of experts from across the entertainment industry, broadcasters, regulators, local authorities, amateur theatre groups, chaperones, children’s organisations, child psychologists, parents and many others. Although there are still some minor issues of contention, there are surprising levels of consensus. We are all agreed that the status quo is no longer viable. Subsequently, that has been profoundly reinforced by the revelations involving Jimmy Savile and others in the entertainment industry in particular, where the arrests continue apace.
The Government launched a public consultation exercise in May last year that ran until 3 August, but it has not yet reported. I believe that the recommendations in the Bill are clear, practical and proportionate, and that they will agree with the findings of the consultation, which we anticipate. I am grateful to all those who gave their time so willingly to inform that consultation exercise, and to Sarah Thane in particular for the immense amount of work that she has done and for her continuing support in carrying her work forward through my Bill.
The basic principle in updating the regulations is outlined in Sarah Thane’s report, which states that
“performing can be good for children and has the potential to develop a wide range of skills and talents”,
and that children
“must be free to express their talents and enthusiasm in a wide variety of ways, without the heavy hand of the state interfering where it is not needed.”
At the moment, the regulations are administered by local authorities, which are responsible for issuing licences to children who perform. The Bill does not propose to change that. The problem is that the regulations are interpreted inconsistently and are often followed or enforced randomly across the country. For many authorities, this is not a mainstream activity with a dedicated full-time licensing officer, so a budding child performer can effectively be discriminated against by postcode.
The regulations are too bureaucratic, so many children miss out on opportunities because the licences take too long to turn around. There is a requirement in some authorities that at least 21 days’ notice be given when applying for a licence, which makes many short-notice assignments completely impractical. In some cases, it can take considerably longer. Parents have written to me complaining that their children have missed out on licences because they have had to wait for the licensing officers to come back from holiday or because a production company has used an alternative actor who happened to live in an authority that was much more geared up for issuing licences quickly and without question.
Each year, an estimated 45,000 licences are issued to child performers, with some authorities issuing as many as 3,000 and some fewer than 100—a wide disparity. Many theatre companies, both commercial and amateur, have a policy not to include children at all, simply because doing so is fraught with too many problems. That cannot be right. We need fewer but better rules, as well as more guidance that is more appropriate, so that the resources are focused on ensuring that local authority officers are effectively monitoring the efficacy of the regulations and that licences are being used properly to help producers to develop effective safeguarding policies, rather than on processing the often inappropriate and excessive paperwork.
My Bill would reduce the occasions when full licensing is required but ensure that where it is required, it is proportionate and meaningful and everyone is held accountable for their ensuing responsibilities. There should be a presumption that licences will be issued unless there are strong grounds not to, but an onus on the employer or producer to identify and manage risk. Licences should be produced on a much reduced time scale, available online and sped up through the use of electronic databases and nationally promoted examples of best practice. There should also be greater flexibility in the terms of the licence, particularly in the case of filming, for which definitive time frames are not always possible. Surely the amount of work required of a child and the ensuing pressure, not the specific dates on which it can take place, is the more important consideration.
Many of those problems can be dealt with by updating secondary legislation, but there are matters that require a change in primary legislation, not least a viable and contemporary definition of what “performance” actually means. My Bill would provide that after further consultation with experts.
Fly-on-the-wall television programmes with no added level of risk need not be subject to regulations, for example when children are in a natural school or sporting environment. However, there is a particular concern when children are put in a contrived documentary situation, in which case the psychological implications need to be carefully considered. I could cite “Boys and Girls Alone” on Channel 4 some years ago.
Under the Bill, it would remain the case that licences were not required where the performance was arranged by a school, or where participation in an activity posed no greater risks than those faced by a child in the ordinary course of his life and he was not being paid.
We also need to make a greater distinction between amateur and commercial performances when it comes to requiring licences. There is a world of difference between children appearing in the amateur village panto surrounded by family members and neighbours, and those who tread the boards late at night alongside professionals, a long way from home, for money. My Bill would allow amateur companies to register with the local authority as an entity so that they can use children, rather than having to apply for an individual licence for children to take part. I know that many am-dram companies in hon. Members’ constituencies have complained about that for a long time.
Current primary legislation states that when a licence is required, it cannot be granted to a child under the age of 14 except when they are acting or dancing in a ballet and the part can be taken only by a child of that age, or when they are taking part in a musical. That is far too prescriptive and restrictive, and my Bill would remove that age and activity requirement. Instead, there should be protections reflecting broad age bands of children.
Although more flexible individual licences should remain for children under 13 who are paid to perform, a more sensible approach for older children taking part in one-off large productions—or, as I have said, for amateur productions—is an extension of the simplified approval process known as “body of persons approval”. That way, a budding village Cinderella will go to the ball rather than be thwarted by waiting for a licence that is taking ages to turn around, and a large regional youth choir that performs occasionally with scores of budding Kate Jenkinses will not have to compile reams of paperwork for each of its members.
I would scrap the so-called four-day rule, whereby if a child is not paid, a licence is not required for up to four days of performances in any six-month period. That is open to abuse. I would also set out clear national thresholds to ensure that those responsible for safeguarding the welfare of children, such as chaperones, have the appropriate ongoing training to do so. Would Jimmy Savile have succeeded in luring so many teenagers back to his dressing room if the chaperones had been there, on the ball and wise to the mesmeric charms of dodgy shell-suited celebrities? Many chaperones are doing a very good job, but there are no formal qualifications for the job and no nationally agreed standards, and my Bill would address that.
There are a number of other technical considerations in my Bill to counter existing measures that are quite simply anachronistic, obstructive and unnecessary. One deals with child earnings, because at the moment how they will be used has to be stipulated. Others deal with the requirement for a GP’s certificate, provided at great cost, which is unnecessary; with the requirement of 15 hours of tuition a week; and with the requirements on performing abroad. I would also ensure that the broadcasting code enforced by Ofcom complemented the terms of the Bill.
Overall, my Bill is intended to overhaul and streamline a system that is clearly now past its sell-by date, with opportunities for children to perform being greater than ever before. We need a system in which it is much clearer when licences are required, we need those licences to be available speedily, and we need proper enforcement and monitoring, consistently applied across all local authority boundaries. We also need greater professional status and recognition for the important work that chaperones do, subject to appropriate and proportionate standards and training across the country.
Just as excessive and inflexible Criminal Records Bureau and vetting and barring requirements drove valuable volunteers away from coming forward, so a well-intentioned but bureaucratic system of performance regulations has led to too many budding young thespians being deprived of the opportunity to take to the stage. Under my Bill, Cinderella will be able to go to the ball secure in her parents’ knowledge that she will benefit and be safe, and that every necessary precaution has been taken to deter shell-suited predators.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Meg Munn, Mr Graham Stuart, Dan Rogerson, Andrea Leadsom, Ann Coffey, Dr Phillip Lee, Henry Smith, Pauline Latham, Mr Robert Buckland and Mrs Eleanor Laing present the Bill.
Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 118).
Opposition Day
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Pub Companies
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the motion on pub companies passed by this House on 12 January 2012; recognises that a wide body of experts share the view that only a statutory code of practice which includes a free-of-tie option with an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator will resolve the contractual problems between the pub companies and their lessees; and calls on the Government to bring forward a timetable which will lead to that statutory code being enshrined in law as soon as is practicably possible and before the end of 2013 at the very latest.
The whole House knows the importance of the great British pub to both our economic prosperity and our national identity. It is not every week that, in the time between the Opposition laying out the wording of a motion and the debate on it, the Government announce that they will comply with most of the detail and accept entirely the spirit of it. We agree with, and are pleased with, the Secretary of State’s acknowledgment that the self-regulatory policy that the Government introduced in November 2011 has failed, and that a statutory code is indeed the answer to the vexed issue of pubcos.
The Government’s announcement yesterday that they would consult on a statutory code will give hope to all those who have called for statutory regulation for nearly two years. It would be churlish not to recognise that the Secretary of State has had the courage to admit that the Government got it wrong. We may never know whether his decision was made in an attempt to stave off an embarrassing rebellion in this debate, whether the response to his call for evidence finally convinced him that the game was up, or whether he simply reflected that the Labour party, the industry and—let us be honest—just about everybody has been right all along. However, if this chance is seized, maybe no one will really mind why it happened.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for pressing for this debate. Does he agree that it is a good example of Parliament—all-party groups, Select Committees and the Labour Opposition—playing a part in getting the Government to do the right thing in the end? I hope that they will be toasting Toby Perkins in pubs across the country tonight.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments, and he is entirely right. The potential exists for this to be a really significant moment, but I do not think we can go any further than that yet.
The Secretary of State’s call for evidence was certainly enthusiastically answered. He wrote to seven different organisations to ask for their views on how self-regulation was working, and he received 19 responses. That is a return rate of 271%, which is the sort of extraordinary and implausible statistical feat that we generally expect to see in a Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet, but there we have it, right at the heart of Government.
Before I get into the detail of how we can ensure that the Government’s announcement makes a meaningful difference, I will reflect briefly on why the debate is so important to so many Members, their constituencies and constituents and the economic and social fabric of our great country. Pubs are synonymous with our great island story, from fictional boozers brought to life, like the Rovers Return in “Coronation Street”, to pubs that have gone down in history such as Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese, famously frequented by Samuel Johnson and where Mrs Perkins and I had a very pleasant lunch just a few weeks ago.
In almost every village, town or city in the land, and indeed in every Member’s constituency, there will be pubs that make us proud of our localities and say much about our areas, and which our constituents wish to see thrive. Britain’s pubs are not only important as key hubs in the community, they are economically vital. Last year, beer and pubs contributed £21 billion to UK GDP, and the Campaign for Real Ale has estimated that the average pub employs 11 people and contributes £80,000 to the local economy.
However, CAMRA recently revealed that around 18 pubs are closing every week, and countless more are fighting for their lives. As we know, when pubs close the cost of failure is felt not just in social terms but in economic terms, at a time when our faltering economy can afford it least. There are now 2,582 fewer pubs than in 2010, equating to 200 jobs lost for each week of the year.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 18 pubs closing a week is too many. He will know, however, that under the previous Labour Government pubs were closing at a rate of 54 a week—four times as many. Will he apologise for the Labour party having let down pubs so badly?
Toby Perkins
That is a frankly disappointing contribution from the hon. Gentleman. One key point that people may reflect on is that there are now 2,582 fewer pubs than in 2010.
Toby Perkins
Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman’s first point before he makes a second one. Using his logic, we could eventually have only 15 pubs left and he would say that was a great success because only 15 have closed this week. As the overall stock reduces there have obviously been fewer closures. Nevertheless, there are now 2,500 fewer pubs than in 2010.
Toby Perkins
I will give way, but let me make a little progress first. I myself am an enthusiastic intervener and I want to give opportunities to Members to intervene, but I know that this debate is considerably over-subscribed, so I must try to strike a balance.
An opportunity for fairness now exists in the industry, and I pay tribute to all those who kept believing and making the case for the historic opportunity that we are considering today. The Sunday Mirror has been a loyal friend to Britain’s publicans with its invaluable “Support Your Pubs” campaign. I also place on record my thanks to Simon Clarke of the Independent Pub Confederation, Dave Mountford and the GMB, Steve Corbett of Fair Pint, and CAMRA for the work they have done to dispel the myths propagated by some in the industry.
I will refer in due course to the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, but I first want to acknowledge the excellent leadership on this issue from the Committee’s former Chair, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), and the current Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is sadly not present in the debate, have made a massive contribution to this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has steadfastly warned about the problems caused by a compulsory beer tie. As well has having wonderful judgment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) have also played a significant role.
There are currently around 50,000 pubs in Britain and around 28,000 are pubco pubs.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has rightly named the heroes of this debate but he should also name the villains—the pubcos and companies such as Punch Taverns. He will be familiar with my constituents Joe and Betty Hynes, who had to close one of their pubs—the other is under threat—because of the predatory activities of Punch Taverns. Had the statutory code come in earlier, many pubs, including theirs, might not have closed. Are the Government responsible for the delay that has taken place?
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend understandably feels incredibly passionate about the experiences of people in his constituency and the impact that this issue has had on real people’s lives and his community. That is why we are having this debate and so much research has gone into it, and why we are now in a more positive position than a couple of months ago. He is right to raise that point. The evidence suggesting that how the industry was operating was wrong is unanswerable.
There are 28,000 pubco pubs that operate on a tied arrangement, and approximately another 10,000 are owned by pubcos and breweries on a different basis. They are the overwhelming majority of the industry. Of course, many things have placed stress on the industry. In recent months we have had debates about the level of taxation, but the increasing cost of living, wage stagnation, the effects of the recession and the continued lack of growth in our economy, and the competition for the leisure pound, have all had an impact on the industry.
Mr Andrew Turner
May I commend the Opposition on bringing forward these proposals and commend the Government on doing so as well? Will the shadow Minister please inform the House what the cost implications will be to the Government of allowing pubs to transfer from a tied to a tie-free licence?
Toby Perkins
That is a valuable question and one of the things we will be investigating in more detail during the consultation. I think, however, that the costs will be minimal in comparison with the massive loss to the Government from revenue going out of the industry as all these pubs close. If we recognise—as many of us do—that the way in which pubcos have constituted their business model is having a dramatically damaging effect on the industry, we will see that the cost of those closures will dwarf any cost to the Government from such a transfer.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many pubco lessees are receiving considerable amounts of tax credit because despite having a big turnover they are not earning enough. The taxpayer is currently subsidising the pub companies, which is outrageous.
Toby Perkins
That is a typically excellent and important point from the hon. Gentleman. Evidence shows that more than 50% of landlords with tied pubs earn less than £15,000 a year. That is shocking to many people who know the huge hours that many publicans put in.
I have already mentioned some challenges facing the industry, and although the health benefits of the smoking ban are widely accepted, we must recognise that it had an impact on many pubs. We have seen aggressive pricing from supermarkets as the off-trade increased its market share. As if that was not enough, the trade is now reeling from the news that I am on the wagon for January. I have not touched a drop for eight days, 13 hours and about 37 minutes.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne mentioned, pub companies have been the subject of four Select Committee hearings in seven years, and on each occasion the big pub company lobby said that this time the steps they would put in place would really make a difference. The scrutiny that the Committee has given the issue, and the tempered and responsible way in which it has attempted to work with the industry, demonstrates our Select Committee system at its very best.
The previous Government deserve tremendous credit for their empowerment of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on this issue. They recognised the expertise and diligent consideration that went into the reports and trusted the Committee to judge whether a statutory code was the answer. It is worth reminding ourselves that throughout Labour’s time in office, the Committee’s recommendation was to give self-regulation time to work. Its verdict that the final chance for self-regulation to work had passed came in summer 2011, but until that time it never called for regulation to be brought in. Therefore, any claim that this issue should have been dealt with years ago is unreasonable because the Government were working on a cross-party basis with the Committee and the all-party save the pub group. Everyone attempted to give the industry every possible opportunity to put its house in order before going down the route of regulation.
Toby Perkins
I will give way to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and then I will give the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) another stab.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I declare that I am a member of CAMRA. Without getting into party politics, can we agree that to compete effectively, people running a pub must be able to buy their supplies at market price, not a rigged higher price, and they must pay market rents rather than rigged rents that are higher?
Toby Perkins
We absolutely can agree on that. I hope Ministers hear that message—it is precisely the principle of the motion on which we will vote shortly, and I welcome the opportunity to see the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby. He makes the point very well.
Andrew Griffiths
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee did not call for statutory regulation in its reports—but does he not think that the Labour Government needed to have done something in their 13 years in government, when more than 9,000 pubs closed?
Toby Perkins
Many challenges, to which I have alluded, faced the industry during the previous Government’s term. In the last two or three years of the Government, we had the recession and people were stretched, and in times before the recession, people’s habits were changing. Pubcos were operating in the way I have described, but the Labour Government attempted to give them the opportunity to put their house in order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is of the view—I apologise if I am wrong—that the pubcos should have been given longer. That was his view when we debated pubcos about a year ago. Members on both sides of the House accept that pubcos were part of the problem and that the previous Government attempted to give them the chance to do things right, so it is difficult for him to criticise the previous Government for doing so.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I acknowledge that the deadline for self-regulation was June 2011, but in the spirit of giving cross-party credit, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the contribution to those campaigns made by Liberal Democrats, including me, as the promoter of a private Member’s Bill on pubcos, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), as the leader of the all-party save the pub group, and the Ministers—the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—who preside over this happy occasion, when it looks very likely that the statutory code will be introduced?
Toby Perkins
I was with the hon. Gentleman for a bit. I have referred to one of his hon. Friends, but if he is disappointed that I did not mention him, I apologise. I do not mean to be ungallant, but the Under-Secretary’s first contribution to the debate was to tell the House that self-regulation was working and there was nothing else to say on pubs.
Toby Perkins
I do not know quite how the Under-Secretary has got into the position of taking credit, but we might be about to find out.
Jo Swinson
It might be helpful to the House to clarify that I did not make the contribution the hon. Gentleman describes to the House or anything else. I am not sure where he gets his information.
Toby Perkins
I will be talking about the quotes attributed to the Under-Secretary by the Morning Advertiser. She is welcome to take the paper to court if they are not true, but it says that she said that, so I was working on that basis.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) referred to the role of the Secretary of State, who made it clear when appearing before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on 20 July 2010 that he would honour the previous Government’s commitment. I have no idea why he did not honour that commitment—it should have been honoured 18 months ago. Perhaps it was naivety or a generosity of spirit that does him credit—the belief that, this time, the pubcos would know that the Government were serious. I do not know, but we should be clear that the delay has been costly for the industry and catastrophic for some victims.
Let no one say that the pubcos were not given long enough or that there has been a rush to legislate. Make no mistake: when the Committee said that statutory regulation was needed, it was the reluctant conclusion of Members who had taken every possible step to avoid making that recommendation. Given the breadth of support for the Committee’s stance, it is hardly surprising that there was dismay when the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), decided instead a year ago to give the pubcos yet another final chance.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I hope the Morning Advertiser has a robust legal department, because the hon. Gentleman might want to discuss how he was quoted in December 2012 on the Labour party’s lack of commitment to legislate—if self-regulation had been proved to have failed—before the general election. I am not clear whether the Labour party’s position has moved swiftly since December, but I agree with him, Ministers and all hon. Members that we want regulation. We are going to get it, so I wish he would stop trying to attack individual Ministers who have been working to get something delivered.
Toby Perkins
Perhaps we could have a group hug at the end of the debate, but it is important at this stage to lay out the history of what has happened. I do not intend to attack Ministers. I put on record at the time and continue to hold the view that a considerable mistake was made 12 to 18 months ago. At the same time, I give credit to the Secretary of State for being big enough to admit that and to come to the House and say, “We got it wrong; now we will get it right.” Every Government in history have made mistakes. At least the Secretary of State has had that courage. That is a balanced view.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I am glad my hon. Friend says that, because the debate is not about playing party politics, but about agreeing a course of action to save our pubs. In the past five years, we have lost nine pubs in Kirkby and Sutton, and I do not want to lose another nine in the next five years, so I am pleased the House has come together to agree measures. One pub, the Red Lion in Bagthorpe, was particularly important to me last year—it was where my partner proposed to me.
Toby Perkins
There is barely a dry eye in the House. If I am any judge, the fact that my hon. Friend is spending more time in Ashfield is considerably good news for the pub industry close to her.
Toby Perkins
I am going to crack on.
In summing up the debate a year ago, the former Minister claimed that he had come up with the toughest self-regulatory regime imaginable. Whatever hon. Members’ perspective, surely none can believe that that was true. The code did not include the free-of-tie option, which is consistently cited as the most significant factor. It did not include the principle of tied lessees being no worse off or an independent adjudicator, and it did not deliver an advisory service. The organisations that were formed were hopelessly compromised. How could anyone possibly believe that that was the toughest regime imaginable?
In case anyone believes the House did not do its duty, let us recall the House’s view at the time. I said in the debate a year ago that there was a cross-party consensus in that Members of all parties agreed that the Government were wrong. To a man and woman, not a single Member dissented to the motion that only a statutory code with a free-of-tie option and an open-market rent review would resolve the problem.
That is exactly the same request that the Opposition respectfully make today. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton did not vote against the motion, and nor did the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or any Member of the House, yet despite the vote, the Government seemed to believe that that was that. On 20 October 2012, the Under-Secretary declined in an interview in the Morning Advertiser—so it is alleged—to take action, saying that self-regulation was working and that the Government had delivered on all their commitments. Two weeks later, she received notification of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions to be answered on 8 November and saw that four of my hon. Friends had tabled questions on pubcos and the Government’s failure to live up to the motion passed by the House. Between Monday and Thursday of that week, the Secretary of State chose to conduct his call for evidence. On 20 December, the Labour party gave notice of its intention to call this debate. Yesterday, less than 24 hours before the debate, the Government made the announcement that we are discussing. That is the recent history.
Toby Perkins
I have come to an entirely natural breaking point, so I am delighted to give way.
Sir Tony Cunningham
All hon. Members welcome a statutory code, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that there is no point having one unless it has teeth. A statutory code must have the requisite teeth.
Toby Perkins
That is an excellent point—it is so good that I intend to make it myself shortly. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
You will note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have thus far been unremittingly positive in my contribution, but even I have my limits. Even my naturally sunny disposition cannot conceal the painful truth of the challenges that the Secretary of State faces if his optimistic announcement is to deliver change. The stipulation of the principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-of-tie licensee will inform the interpretation of decisions made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The advice that guidance should be interpreted in the light of the principle is an extraordinarily welcome step. Beyond rents, however, it is hard to see how that principle can be assured without the freeing up of the market that would happen if a free-of-tie option were offered to all new or renewed contracts. Surely, it is only the combination of fair rents and freedom to buy where the landlord chooses—tied if they wish, free if they do not—that frees the industry from the shackles of the pubcos.
Let me make it clear: we are not calling for the end of the tie. We support the Government’s decision to restrict these measures to companies with more than 500 pubs, and recognise that some pubcos use the tied arrangement responsibly. We also value the small family breweries and recognise the important role the tie plays for them. That is why we support a genuine free market option for the major pub-owning companies that allows for a free-of-tie option, with fair rent or a tied option, to be chosen by the landlord. It is impossible to see how the Secretary of State’s proposals will not be compromised without that.
In the initial press release issued at 1.40 pm yesterday, note 7 read:
“The Code will not mandate, as some campaigners have suggested, a ‘free of tie option with open market rent review’. Neither will it abolish the beer tie. Evidence strongly suggests that the tie itself is not the issue—it is in fact a valid business model and its removal would significantly harm the British brewing industry. It is the abuse of the tie in certain circumstances that is causing the problem. The Code will ensure that pub companies use the tie responsibly.”
By 4.37 pm, less than three hours later, an amended press release had omitted note 7 and there was no mention of the free-of-tie option. This is no way to run a whelk stall, much less take crucial decisions on a vital and struggling industry. The central part of this whole issue was ruled out at 1 o’clock, but by 4.37 pm was apparently back on the table.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to push this crucial issue. He is also right to say that the issue is not necessarily about pubcos, and that for some pubs it is a viable business model. The real worry, however, is that without a free-of-tie option, irresponsible pubcos will just continue to use this business model as nothing short of a savings-stripping exercise.
Toby Perkins
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes the point extremely well.
I appreciate that yesterday was a bit of a day for the Secretary of State, but we could do with clarity on the free-of-tie issue. Assuming that the new version is right, why was note 7 there in the first version? Is the industry supposed to have confidence that the Secretary of State has not made his mind up when the thoughts in his mind, wildly at odds with the view of this House and all established thought in the industry, are so clearly exposed? I am assuming that it was not a typo, and that a monkey did not arrive at his keyboard and randomly tap away 81 words in what appear to be an order. If it is not a mistake, someone wrote them and wrote them for a reason. I hope the Secretary of State will respond to the point and say why that note came out initially.
There are other significant challenges with the way the system is currently operating. On independent advice, the British Institute of Innkeeping advice service, which was promised for July 2012, still does not exist, and there would be questions about its independence if it did. Meanwhile, the truly independent Pubs Advisory Service, a voluntary organisation, is under-resourced and steps must be taken to strengthen awareness of it and to retain its independence. The Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service is not viewed as independent at all. It is funded and dominated by the big pubco lobby. It is also there to see if the pubcos are adhering to the entirely inappropriate and inadequate codes that currently apply.
I met Alan Yorke yesterday, the first person to go through the PICAS process. He described it as shambolic, intimidatory and not remotely independent. He tells me that he felt that it was entirely beholden to the pubco with which he was in dispute, and, despite his winning the case, the successful attempts by the pubco to delay the process resulted in him losing the pub before the case was heard. He is now being pursued through the courts for back rent from the pubco, despite its never completing the task that he had originally sought action on. With all the problems that the Secretary of State has identified, how can he possibly be satisfied with PICAS? Yet yesterday he described it as working well, with two of the three cases that have gone in front of it winning their case. Mr Yorke’s case is one of those that won; sometimes winning does not feel so great.
The Pubs Independent Rent Review Scheme is similarly discredited. Of the five independent reviewers in London, it appears that four have clear conflicts of interest as businesses that provide services to the big pubcos. I can provide the Secretary of State with specific details of their links, if he is unaware of them, but suffice it to say that there is considerable room for improvement. The BII’s own financial position is described as “pretty grim” by its chairman, and its dwindling membership suggests distrust about its relationship with pubcos and the potential reliance on them. We understand that the proposed overarching body that will look after each of those organisations will be similarly compromised. The Guild of Master Victuallers and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers were apparently being offered places on the organisational board in return for signing up to the discredited original framework code.
The Secretary of State laments that the measures taken 14 months ago have not led to a culture change in the industry. How did anyone possibly think that they would do so when they required so little of the pubcos? We should remember that the Secretary of State claimed that his solution would be quicker, could be just as effective, and would ensure that pub companies changed their mode of operations.
I have here the code of Enterprise Inns. Members will be interested to know that it has various provisions that were cited by the British Beer and Pub Association to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as “immediate improvements” to the version 5 framework code. They were copied and pasted by the Department into the Government response in December 2011. There is abolition of upward-only rent reviews; training availability; access to information on the pub—letting details, trading information, rent calculations and time scales for taking up occupation. There is availability of the price list. All those steps were supposed to be the big improvements that the Minister had wrung out of the pubcos. However, that is Enterprise’s code from 2002. All that is already there—not “immediate improvements” at all. The previous Minister also said that the code would rebalance risk and reward within the industry. Members will be aware that at the meeting of the all-party save the pub group the balance of risk and reward between the pubcos and their lessees was not, in the view of the BBPA, something in which it had any role.
The challenges facing the Secretary of State are significant if he is to deliver the real change that Labour is calling for in this debate. He has made a start. If, having started, he continues to follow the courage of his convictions, he will find that Her Majesty’s Opposition will do everything they can to help to get a meaningful code on the statute book as quickly as possible. We will work with the Government, but their response must pass three simple but key tests. First, will the statutory code include a free-of-tie option and a guest beer right? Secondly, will it deliver fair rents? Thirdly, will the independent adjudicator and the independent advice service work properly? It appears from comments made by the Secretary of State that there is real potential for delivery on the rents and the adjudicator and the advice service. However, there is a lack of clarity on the beer tie and a guest beer right, both of which are central standards that a whole range of organisations will be asking the Government to meet.
Let me make it clear that if the Government shirk their responsibility and the situation remains as it is today, when the next Labour Government come to power in 2015 we will introduce the regulation. However, this Government should introduce what we have called for today. The British pub stands on the precipice. The industry has failed the fairness test and it falls to this Government—or to the next Government—to have the bravery to do what is right. We will not fail the British pub; we hope the Government will not either. I commend the motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“recalls its Resolution of 12 January 2012 on pub companies; recognises that a wide body of experts share the view that only a statutory code of practice and an independent adjudicator will resolve the contractual problems between the pub companies and their lessees; calls for a statutory code, which would enshrine in law both an overarching fair dealing principle and the fundamental principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-of-tie licensee; and believes that the consultation will establish how best to do this, as well as producing proposals for a strong adjudicator with the power to arbitrate disputes, investigate breaches of the code and impose sanctions, including financial penalties for the most severe breaches, as soon as is practicably possible.”
I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, which I think many of us come to as constituency MPs. We have pubs in our constituencies, many of which have had serious difficulties with pubcos, and have faced real hardship and loss. We also recognise that this is an important industry for the economy, with 50,000 small businesses employing several hundred thousand people, many of whom are very badly paid. For many of us, pubs are an important community asset. That is the context in which we operate.
Our approach was triggered in October, when I appeared before the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. The members of the Committee raised their concerns about how the self-regulatory approach was working. As a consequence of that discussion, I immediately wrote to the industry for evidence on what was happening. Several things have clearly changed. The approach adopted last year had produced some results. The independent arbitration service, PICAS, had been set up and, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) described, in two of the three cases referred to it, it found against the pubcos, and version 5 of the industry framework code was incorporated into contracts at the end of 2011.
It was clear, however, from the evidence—the 19 submissions—that the changes had not gone far enough. For example, very little effort had been made to notify tenants and lessees about their rights under the new system. That was an example of the lack of implementation under the voluntary code. After consultation with colleagues, therefore, I wrote yesterday to the Chair of the Select Committee to inform him that I wished to establish a statutory code and to proceed with public consultation.
Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I join the chorus of approval for the decision the Secretary of State just outlined to the House, and in the spirit of the intervention from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and of my favourite proverb, “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan”, I would like to say that this is a victory for Parliament, for the Select Committee system and, above all, for pubs themselves.
Vince Cable
That is absolutely right. I am not sure that being tribal about this is very helpful. My hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee when it produced a succession of highly creditable reports that were subsequently built on by the work of the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and his colleagues. Indeed, Members across the House, whether Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and others have all played an important part.
I realise that, given that this is an Opposition day, the Opposition spokesman could not resist a bit of politics, but I would make two simple points to him. I think he entered the House in 2010, along with many of his Front-Bench team, and I get the sense sometimes that for some people 2010 is year zero, when history began. There is a tendency to forget what happened before. As he acknowledged, the Select Committee first investigated this subject in 2004, and despite his contempt for the self-regulatory approach, the last Government persisted with it for six years. They decided in February 2010, shortly before the election, that stronger action was needed, but it was too late to do anything.
I know the Opposition think that people will be swinging their Toby jugs on the basis of the speech by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, but he had the unfortunate experience, which several of us have had, of being misquoted—possibly—by the Morning Advertiser, when he told it on 13 December that he could
“not commit to a manifesto pledge…until 2015, and only if the self-regulation agreement has failed”.
So the hyperbolic tone of his speech does not reflect where he was as little as a month ago.
None the less, we are where we are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said, great credit should be given to the parliamentary system. We all now understand the need for stronger action through a statutory code. The culture change that we all wanted did not happen, and the simple fact is that although some pub companies have behaved well—it is important to acknowledge that—in too many cases there has been exploitation and a squeezing of tenants and lessees, causing real hardship. It is worth noting that many of the small businesses involved—about half of tied tenants—are existing on incomes of £15,000 or less.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on yesterday’s press releases and the great announcement. This is a hugely difficult topic. South Derbyshire, which is next to Burton, is enmeshed in the brewing business. Indeed, my husband worked for brewers for 40 years, so it has been a lifelong journey for us. We have seen fantastic pubs, such as the Old Talbot in Hilton, going under because of these difficulties with the tie, but I am grateful to hear that the statutory consultation will relieve pubcos with fewer than 500 pubs. Family pub companies work this very well. It is a model that ought to work; it is the extremes that need to be dealt with. Perhaps that can be tweaked in the consultation.
Vince Cable
Yes, that is an extremely good, balanced statement of the factors we have to take into account here. The hon. Lady is right that we propose to deal with the larger pub companies—those with more than 500 pubs. We will be consulting on that, but that is the approach we intend to adopt.
Greg Mulholland
I congratulate my right hon. Friend warmly on this wonderful announcement for Britain’s pubs. I urge him to emphasise, however, that there are many small pub companies doing well, taking on pubs, employing people and expanding, which shows that the problem is not with the pubs or companies, but with the giant lease pub companies that have abused both the model and their position.
Vince Cable
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall say more about this later, but the microbreweries and innovative breweries are a major growth industry, expanding well and offering a more varied service. They are a great success story and we do not want to do anything with this new approach that will undermine them.
John Healey
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a statutory code of practice, but would he also accept that the viability of hundreds of pubs is damaged by high and escalating beer duty? Will he ensure, in his Department’s budget submission, that BIS Ministers also argue for an end to high beer tax and inflation-busting increases and for an end to the system that favours foreign-produced wine over British-brewed beer?
Vince Cable
The right hon. Gentleman is right that, as the Opposition spokesman acknowledged, a variety of factors have hit the pub industry, besides the structure of ownership. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in 2008 when the beer duty escalator was introduced.
Vince Cable
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Nevertheless, many of us in the House voted for those beer duty increases, so I cannot disown them at this stage. They are an important source of revenue, as his Government, as well as ours, realised.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I cannot confess to being a great beer drinker, although I supported the Shoulder of Mutton in Assington, Suffolk, where I spent Christmas with my daughter—so I did my bit for the economy to make up for the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who clearly has not done his bit to support the industry. In response to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I would like to say that the escalator was introduced by the last Government. This Government are continuing it, however, and it is unquestionably doing serious damage to something that everyone in the House really values in our communities, whether rural or urban. Fuller, Smith and Turner, a fantastic family-owned business, tells me that, out of a turnover of £304 million a year, £114 million —37%—goes in tax of one form or another. Will my right hon. Friend address that matter with the Chancellor?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is a very short debate and many Members wish to speak, but some of them are repeatedly intervening on the Secretary of State. It would be good if, first, interventions could be short, and secondly, those wishing to speak could be a little more disciplined, given that there is already a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. At this rate, that is going to go down.
Vince Cable
I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the assurances he wants on beer duty. I supported the Government’s approach to the taxation. On his drinking habits, I will only say that, like several of us, I am still haunted by having signed the temperance pledge aged 11.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to the Secretary of State, because I will have to leave for another debate soon. There is a sense of urgency in my constituency about his matter, however, so will he give an indication of the time scale for the introduction of a statutory code?
Vince Cable
We want to get on with this as quickly as possible. We have to launch a consultation, receive the results and then act on them, hopefully over the spring. That is the time horizon we are looking at.
Andrew Griffiths
I am mindful of your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to ask a simple question. The press release says that this will apply to companies with more than 500 tied pubs. There are 52,000 pubs in the country and hundreds of companies, brewers and businesses that own pubs. Out of all of those, to the nearest two, will the Secretary of State tell me how many companies this legislation will affect?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Basically, the problem in London—certainly inner London—is property values. Many pubs close because pub companies and others make a great deal of money out of selling them and moving on into residential accommodation. My borough council is trying to introduce a planning policy that does not allow an automatic change of use. Is there anything the Secretary of State can do to preserve what are very important community assets from property speculation, beyond what is already happening to the pub industry through this lack of regulation?
Vince Cable
As I understand it, there is in any event a specialist use class under the planning regime, which, as it currently stands, provides a degree of protection. We have a programme, which one of my ministerial colleagues introduced a month ago, for supporting community pubs; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s local council and community are taking advantage of that.
Toby Perkins
Further to the question that the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) asked, can the Secretary of State clarify whether he is talking purely about pubcos with more than 500 pubs or about pub-owning companies with 500 pubs?
Vince Cable
I have just checked the numbers: it was not two, but six companies that are likely to be affected under the current proposal.
Let me go back over some of the salient facts that led us to this position.
Toby Perkins
With respect, the Secretary of State did not get the opportunity to answer my question. Are we talking about pubcos or pub-owning companies?
Vince Cable
I think we are talking essentially about the latter—although most of the abuses have happened in the relatively small number of pubcos that happen to have a particular business model—but as I have said, we will define the precise range of companies that will be covered in the consultation.
There has been a contraction of the industry, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, from 70,000 pubs in 1980 to 50,000 today. The financial crisis brought into stark relief the slow process of sectoral decline. At present, 18 pubs are closing every week—that is, 18 net; some are opening. Various factors have aggravated the problems of the industry—we have discussed one or two already. The beer duty escalator is one and the outlawing of smoking is another. Many of us supported that measure on public health grounds; none the less, it drove away a certain amount of the clientele. Having voted for those things, I would not criticise them, but we all have to acknowledge that the problems of the pub industry are multiple, and the structure of the industry, which is what we are concerned with in this debate, is only one of those factors.
However, it is undoubtedly the case that the activities of the pubcos, with their highly leveraged business model, have intensified the crisis. These companies were established in the 1990s and started to attract comment and criticism a decade ago. Like an awful lot of other business models that were constructed in the long, artificial, debt-based boom, there did not appear to be a great many problems at the time. With the banking collapse and subsequent recession, the weakness of companies with high debt-to-equity ratios has been rather brutally exposed. What we have seen in recent years is the pubcos trying to retrieve their financial position at the expense of their tenants. We are all familiar with well managed, popular pubs in our constituencies being driven to the wall by, frankly, exploitative financial practices.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Enterprise Inns announced over Christmas that it would go from 6,000 pubs to 5,200 over the next three years. It will be important to get the code of practice in place quickly, because some of those will be the tied pubs.
Vince Cable
They will, and the terms of sale under which that pubco, along with others, is disposing of those pubs is another important element in the protection that we now propose to offer.
The pattern of behaviour we see in this area—where there is a serious imbalance between the contracting parties in the business relationship—is not unique to the pub industry. We see something similar with the banks and small business, as has been exposed by the derivatives scandal, and in the relationship between supermarkets and the farmers who supply them. In both cases, Parliament and Government have accepted the need to act to protect the weaker parties. That is precisely the position we have now reached with the pubcos. We took the view in 2011 that they should be put on probation, with a strengthened voluntary code. We gave them every chance, but we concluded that there was not enough progress. We therefore decided to establish, subject to consultation, the statutory code and an independent adjudicator, as I have described. I am disappointed—the Labour party probably is too—that a long period of trying to get a voluntary process has not worked sufficiently. I stress that we are not starting from the standpoint of a competitive market; rather, we are often talking about relationships that are almost feudal in character. We want to introduce a relationship that is genuinely market based, where there is genuine competition and a genuine choice for people entering the industry.
Let me describe more specifically how we envisage the code operating. It will draw on the existing framework code—we are currently on version 5 and there is a discussion about version 6—but be strengthened to include an overarching “fair dealing” provision and the fundamental principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant. I recognise that those concepts, especially the first, will need legal clarification.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have taken the view that the new code will not contain the requirement for there to be a free-of-tie option, as opposed to the formulation he has just expanded on?
Vince Cable
We have not come to a final view on that. That is something the consultation process can elicit. As I will set out, and as I think the hon. Gentleman’s spokesman said too, there is no fundamental problem with the tie—there are other ways of dealing with rental exploitation, for example. The question whether to give that offer and build it into the code is a perfectly good question—there are strong arguments on both sides—and I want the consultation to help us to come to a conclusion on it.
The position I have set out will be particularly significant for rent, because the consultation will propose that the guidance issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors must be interpreted in the light of the principle I have described. The code will also need to be strengthened on areas such as gaming machines, but that is something else we can explore in the consultation.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome yesterday’s announcement, but will the Secretary of State concede that there are other issues where the relationship between the pubco and the tenant is biased one way? They include, for instance, portable appliance testing—or PAT testing—of electrical equipment in pubs and insurance, all of which are forced through by the pubco at above the market rate. I am concerned that the pubcos might inflate those things to cope with cuts in other areas of their income.
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the problems that has occurred in the past is that any concession on beer prices would be offset by rent or vice versa. He is right that areas such as insurance are important elements of the package, and they would certainly be covered by the adjudicator.
The proposed adjudicator will be based on the model of the groceries code adjudicator, which was approved by the House recently. I propose that the adjudicator will have the following powers and functions: to arbitrate disputes between large pub companies and their licensees; to carry out investigations based on complaints received; to have wide-ranging powers to require information from pubcos during an investigation and, when an investigation finds that a pub company has breached the code, to impose sanctions on it, including financial penalties in the case of severe breaches; to publish guidance on when and how investigations will proceed and how the enforcement powers can be used; to advise pub companies and licensees on the code; and to recommend changes to the code. The consultation will propose that the new adjudicator, like the groceries code adjudicator, be funded by an industry levy—in this case on the pubcos—with those who breach the code paying a proportionately higher levy. In order to place the most proportionate burden on business, my current thinking is that the new regulatory regime should apply to all pub companies with a tied estate of more than 500 tied pubs. As I have indicated to the House, we are currently talking about six operations.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Just to be clear, will the funding come from a levy only on the pub companies to which the code applies?
Vince Cable
Yes, that is the intention. Our approach would target the companies with the greatest buying power and exempt smaller companies, about which very few complaints have been received. This, too, is a matter we want to pursue in the consultation.
One issue that I would like to clarify relates to the beer tie. Some campaigners, and the motion under debate today, suggest that in order to be effective, we must mandate that all pub companies must offer a free-of-tie option with open market rent review. As I have just indicated to my opposite number, we have an open mind on that matter and will be happy to look at it during the consultation.
Toby Perkins
The Secretary of State must recognise that the fact that the original press release ruled out the free-of-tie option will cause some to believe that he is not approaching this matter with an entirely open mind. Will he explain how that happened?
Vince Cable
All I can say is that the final version, which I approved and sent out, is the correct statement of where my colleagues and I stand on this.
The evidence suggests that the tie, in itself, is not the issue. It is a valid business model that is used responsibly by companies large and small. It is clear, however, that in some cases the tie is being abused, just as many other business practices can be abused, and it is that abuse that we need to tackle, rather than the tie itself.
There are good grounds for believing that the tie, as such, is not the problem. First, the number of pubs has been declining steadily. The Beer Orders in 1989 and the pubco consolidation in the 1990s resulted in relatively little change in the rate of decline. Secondly, the figures from the past three years, 2008 to 2011, show that the closure rate was lower in tied pubs than in free-of-tie pubs. That is the case regardless of whether we look at the gross or net closure rate, the latter of which takes into account churn by pubcos. Thirdly, the tie does not harm consumer choice. In fact, it sustains and supports the British brewing industry, a successful export industry that has more than doubled since the year 2000.
Martin Horwood
I echo what my right hon. Friend is saying about the tie. It has been a valuable source of investment for some pubs in my constituency, including the Royal at Charlton Kings and the Tivoli. The problem is in the power relationship between local landlords and the big pubcos. The “no worse off” principle is an interesting point of debate, but I would still advocate the free-of-tie option, and I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s openness to considering that option during the consultation.
Vince Cable
My colleague is absolutely right to say that this is about power relationships and how we can prevent them from spilling over into abuse. As I have said, I have an open mind about the precise legal mechanisms that we shall use.
Greg Mulholland
Will my right hon. Friend look again at the Save the Pub document, which shows that the figures on pub closures are extremely misleading? He must recognise that they were paid for by the pubcos’ association, the British Beer and Pub Association. Many pubs have been reclassified on closure as being free of tie, having in some cases never operated as such. The figures clearly show that there are more free-of-tie pubs now than there were, and that tied business failure is huge—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We must have brief interventions. Time is ticking on.
Vince Cable
I would not want to cross swords with my colleague on the statistics, which he knows extremely well. He makes a compelling point.
Returning to the issue of the success of the industry, and particularly the small companies, the Office of Fair Trading found in 2010 that the market share of microbrewers had increased between 2004 and 2008, and that the volume of sales had grown by something in the order of 50% in that period. We found out recently that the number of breweries in Britain had topped 1,000, which is the highest level since the 1930s. Furthermore, as well as the tie being essential to family brewers such as Charles Wells or Fuller’s, the OFT also found that large pub companies that owned tied pubs also bought a considerable volume from microbrewers and regional brewers. Accordingly, the Government’s proposals are designed to address abuses of the tie, through enshrining in the code the principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant, while not impinging on the business practices of companies that are using the tie responsibly, as many do.
This is an industry in which many companies behave well, in which seven out of 10 licensees would sign up again with their pub company and in which there are real examples of pub companies, brewers and tenants working together to invest for the future. Unfortunately, parts of the industry have acted irresponsibly in squeezing their tenants, resulting in considerable personal, as well as economic, hardship for those who lose out.
That is why the Government are now going to consult on the strong, decisive step of introducing a strengthened statutory code that will address the balance of risk and reward, as well as an independent adjudicator who can investigate on behalf of tenants and impose sanctions on pub companies that persistently breach the code. As I said to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I intend to publish the consultation soon. We hope that it will be completed in the spring and that it will be strongly welcomed by the House, as well as more widely by all those who work in, use or benefit from the pub industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There is a five-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions, from now.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I beg your pardon, Mr Bailey. We need to be sure what we are talking about. The original Question is on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been proposed, as on the Order Paper. The Question is that the original words stand part of the Question. In my haste to get the debate started, I omitted to say that.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best to ensure that I know what I am talking about.
I welcome the debate and thank the Secretary of State for his letter to me yesterday and for his statement to the House. I want to clarify why we have reached this position and to give the House the history of the matter. There have been four Select Committee reports on this issue since 2004, and the one produced by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), was key to our reaching the current position. It stated that the industry was not making the progress to which it had previously committed itself to making, that it should be given a further year and that, if it had not made sufficient progress after that time, we should introduce a statutory code that would include provisions for the free-of-tie option and the open market rent review.
Peter Luff
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has carried forward the flame so effectively in this Parliament, following on from his membership of the Select Committee during the previous one. Does he agree that the proposals we are debating today illustrate what can happen when Select Committees return to a subject again and again, rather than simply producing a report and letting the matter drop? His determination has paid dividends.
Mr Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. One of the most effective ways in which Select Committees can operate is to consider an issue, then monitor the Government’s performance and commitments on it time and again, so that at the end of the day, sheer pester power can prevail in getting the Committee’s objectives addressed. I want to make it clear that my Committee will certainly exercise such pester power in this instance.
My Committee decided that insufficient progress had been made on this issue, and that a statutory approach was the only way forward. The Secretary of State had previously undertaken to accept the Select Committee’s proposals, and we were rather disappointed when we were rebuffed with the token gesture of an offer to place the existing code on a statutory basis. The Committee decided that that was insufficient, that it would not realise our objectives and that it would not address the problems we had identified.
I subsequently applied for a debate through the Backbench Business Committee, which was heard almost exactly a year ago. I was tempted to go for a confrontational approach, but decided that we might command more support across the House if we gave ourselves a chance to see how the voluntary code was working. The House duly obliged by passing a resolution to the effect that, after so many months, a committee would be set up to review the working of the code. That was ignored by the Government, but I made it quite clear that the Select Committee would not ignore the matter. Indeed, when we questioned the Secretary of State in October, this issue was raised and he was questioned very forcibly about the progress that had been made. I give credit to him for acknowledging that the hoped-for progress had not been made and saying that he would take steps to look at the matter again. The commitment we have secured today is the outcome of that particular process. Let me repeat that this demonstrates what a Select Committee can do if it continues to apply pressure.
All this is not due just to the role of the Select Committee, as a number of Members have shown a degree of commitment and tenacity on the issue to ensure that it never goes away. I mention the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—my colleague on the Select Committee, who unfortunately cannot be here today—and indeed the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That is to name just a few of a large number of Members who have continually lobbied on the issue.
In congratulating ourselves on getting to this point, it is important that we do not assume that getting a statutory code of practice will solve all the problems. Some problems that the industry faces are beyond solving in any statutory code. None the less, such a code will go a long way to dealing with some of the sense of injustice felt about the unfair balance of the relationship between the pub companies and licensees. The key question is whether today’s proposals will deal adequately with that problem.
Much has been said about the balance of risk and reward and the free-of-tie option. I am interested in the concept floated by the Secretary of State about the fair deal provision. It is very important that this is defined and well understood. Within the industry and among the licensees, there is a deep suspicion that a closeness with the Royal Society of Chartered Surveyors and sometimes the pub companies has led to artificially high rents, which has removed any advantage that the free-of-tie option might otherwise have had. This comes down again to the issue of getting a fair deal and the balance of risk and award. Without a transparent and accepted basis for rent reviews, the advantage of free of tie disappears. We could end up with a balanced relationship between tied and free of tie, with both being profoundly unfair when it comes to the balance between the pub companies and licensees.
I welcome the opportunity for the Select Committee to contribute to dealing with those issues, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to be open-minded about the possibility of having a free-of-tie and open market rent review, but I come back to the point that we must have a transparent and robust process for rent reviews that can be accepted across the industry. This particular piece of legislation will not solve everything, but it will go a long way to doing so.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The pub industry is exceptionally important to the British economy, contributing around £21 billion to the UK’s GDP and supporting about 1 million jobs. Pubs are often the only social hub for residents across the country, and they are often at the heart of local villages in my South East Cornwall constituency. I have kept in regular contact with the pub tenants in my constituency, and it is clear that they have struggled. Some pubs have already closed.
One pub that has struggled is in my local village—the Devon and Cornwall inn in Millbrook. It was at this pub that I became the first Cornish MP to pull a pint during the all-party group’s campaign last year, and it is a prominent part of local village life. The former licensee, Mr Russell Ham, had to surrender his lease in May last year and be released from his trading obligations. Part of the reason for him surrendering his lease was that the Devon and Cornwall inn was tied to and on lease from one of the national pubcos, which applies to about half of UK pubs.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role she has played in this campaign. Will she join me in paying tribute to CAMRA, which has been tireless in supporting the campaign, and to individuals such as Jeff Hoyle in my constituency who have been lobbying MPs, making the same strong case that she is reiterating?
Sheryll Murray
Absolutely. CAMRA has done a superb job in highlighting the issue to all politicians from all parties.
About half of UK pubs are owned by pub companies—large property companies that lease pubs out to tenants to run as their own businesses. These pubs are contractually obliged to buy their beer only from the pub company, preventing pub licensees from buying on the open market, thus creating a monopoly. Russell Ham, the licensee at the Devon and Cornwall, was forced to pay a price for the alcohol he sold that was as much as 50% higher than he could have paid if it was sourced elsewhere—but the pubco insisted that he purchased it from them. However, the situation seems to be improving gradually. The voluntary code of practice is operational and the gap between those pub companies and some of the smaller more independent pub companies has been closing.
I congratulate the Government on yesterday’s announcement about a new statutory code and an independent adjudicator to investigate disagreements between pubs and their owners. This is needed to ensure fair play among the biggest players in the industry, as the code will apply only to pub companies with more than 500 tied publicans. This ensures that small independent breweries are not unintentionally caught within the scope of the code. If Mr Ham were still running his pub, he might have been able to stay in business and even perhaps make a profit. In this way, the Government may well be able to save the livelihoods of thousands of people, including constituents of mine, so I would like to say thank you to the Secretary of State.
However, we need to look at the business ethos of these large pub companies. It would be good for pub companies to operate like another of my constituents, Mr James Staughton, who is the managing director of the St Austell brewery. He operates a different business model to the pub companies, allowing his tenants to be a lot more flexible. He puts more emphasis on protecting and nurturing family breweries and traditional tenancy agreements. This is a genuine business partnership: even though it is still a business, it would not think twice before reducing the rent or even offering premises rent-free to a hard-working licensee who is genuinely struggling. Mr Staughton also operates a renewable three-year tenancy agreement that is a relatively low-cost way of setting up a business, and it requires less capital investment. Furthermore, a licensee can give him notice at any time and with no financial penalty. That is different from the large pub companies which offer long leases that are mostly much more expensive. If a landlord or tenant wants to sell the business, they will have to find a buyer mostly on the open market and agree a premium that is often far less than was originally paid.
I understand that the changes were too late for Russell Ham, but it would be good for pub companies to operate with a more human face—like the St Austell brewery. Its pubs are thriving in comparison to others, and that is because of the genuine relationships with the licensees, which is what the larger pub companies are lacking.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on putting small business at the very foundation of Britain’s economic recovery. In his recent autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that thousands of pubs will continue to benefit from paying no business rates, or a discounted rate, for another year, as the small business rate relief holiday has been extended to April 2014. That will be of great help to our local pubs, which we all want to succeed.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I am delighted to be taking part in this important debate. The beer and pub industries are an integral part of the DNA of the country and our heritage past and future, and pubs and clubs are part of our history. Personally, I see myself as more a practitioner than a theorist in these matters: I made my first visit to a pub at the age of 14, and as I approach my 60th birthday, I think that I have a wealth of experience on pub-related issues.
I must caution the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, against being too partisan. I believe that both the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) have set out fairly the history relating to the difficult problem of pub companies, which has been caused by only a small number of them.
There are many reasons for the closure of pubs over a number of years and, in particular, during the last few years. It has been largely due to the change in drinking habits and, indeed, the role of the supermarkets. We have yet to deal with the problem of the availability of cheap supermarket booze, which the last Government did not manage to sort out. People pre-load and then end up at the pub, causing problems. When pubs and clubs remove those people, they may be faced with a bill from the police, and may also find themselves with a reputation for inappropriateness that is, in fact, unfounded.
Let me return to the subject of the pubcos. On Monday I received an e-mail from a constituent, who wrote:
“I'm planting a seed of real concern re the future of the George & Dragon as a pub in Great Horton.”
Great Horton is in my constituency.
“The decision by Enterprise Inns to sell was announced over Christmas. The current licensees, who’ve been there over 25 years, are leaving end of January. It’s a grade 2 listed building. I read that Enterprise are in the process of reducing their number of pubs from 6,000 down to 5,200 over the next 3 years. Is there anything that can be done to keep this pub open, such an invaluable part of the fabric of life in Great Horton? I have been a resident of Great Horton for the past 30 years and a regular customer at the pub.”
That is the real issue that we need to address. Pubs are continuing to close, and the pubcos will use the cover of time scales, consultations and the outcome of those consultations, which may require further action. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether primary or secondary legislation will be needed. It is important for us to know what process will be required for the introduction of a code of practice. Time is of the essence if we are to resolve this matter.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out the issues very clearly. There are 63 pubs in the towns and villages of my constituency, and I am keen to keep them there. Does he think that the action proposed by both Front Benches will be strong enough to prevent further closures?
Mr Sutcliffe
I hope so. As has already been said, pubs close for more than one reason, but I am hopeful that the united approach that Members have taken today, and the pace at which the Secretary of State wishes to operate, will send the pub companies the clear message that we are watching what is going on and will take a dim view of any tactics that expedite matters before we can bring about the resolution that we want.
When I was the licensing Minister, I worked on Cabinet Sub-Committees with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) in trying to find ways of stopping pub closures and—through planning legislation, for instance—supporting community pubs, particularly those in rural areas, because they were hubs that people needed for social activities. We must to try to retain as many pubs as possible, but there are difficulties involved. I met many tenants who had been abused by pub companies—that is the only way in which to describe it—and left debt-ridden by their excesses. If we can introduce fair rents, fair operations and free, without-tie opportunities, we shall be taking an important step forward.
There are many successful pub company models: we need only look at Wetherspoon and Brewers Fayre. We must deal with the issue of binge drinking, but I believe that that is linked to pre-loading and supermarkets. There are responsible licensees and responsible brewing pub companies that operate ties properly. Such companies are many and varied in Yorkshire, Theakston being an obvious example. There are micro-breweries such as Saltaire and Salamander, in my constituency, which offer a wide choice of market opportunities.
Urgency is the order of the day if the Department is to make progress. It is right that there should be consultation, but, as a former Minister, I know that time scales can slip, and that officials and others can come up with barriers and ways of halting the progress that politicians want to make. I hope that that will not happen in this case. I believe that the work of the Select Committees, the all-party beer group and the Save the Pub campaign has brought us where we are today, and that today is a day for rejoicing. However, there is still a job to be done, and I hope that we can do it together as quickly as possible.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
This is the second occasion in just a few months on which the House has discussed the plight of the brewing and pub industries, and as on the first occasion, some interesting and important contributions have been made.
When I spoke in the debate organised by the Backbench Business Committee, I argued strongly in favour of self-regulation. I wanted to give the industry more time in which to put its house in order and get its act together. Clearly my argument did not win the day, but I advanced it for a particular reason. I felt not only that certain strides were being made and that at least some pub companies were beginning to get their act together, but that the self-regulation that had been proposed previously would protect all tenants—everyone in the industry who was running a pub. I fear that we are proposing legislation to tackle the actions of one or two companies, and I think that that is dangerous.
I urge caution for two reasons. One is the fact that we are considering the creation of first-class and second-class pubs. We are considering intervening in the business model. We are proposing, through statutory regulation, to force tied-lease companies with more than 400 pubs to offer a fair deal. We are proposing to regulate the way in which their rents are set within their estates. However, another company with 380 or 450 pubs will not be regulated. I am not sure that the Government have thought this through in the context of competition and free markets. There are serious questions to be asked. If we want fair dealing for tenants, should we not offer fair dealing to all companies that own pubs? As I said earlier, there are 52,000 pubs in the country, and we are intending to introduce legislation that affects only some of them.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is expressing a principled and, perhaps, a minority view. Is he now suggesting that the threshold should be lowered from 500, as opposed to our not introducing statutory regulation at all?
Andrew Griffiths
The House is anxious not to overburden smaller pub companies, particularly family brewers, and I would caution against that. However, I do not think that we have fully thought through the consequences of what is being proposed.
Andrew Griffiths
I do not think that family supermarkets are an issue in this context.
My second point relates to the self-regulatory code. What the Government are proposing is a two-tier system, with the big boys in the first tier. There is some confusion over what they mean by tied leases. The British Beer and Pub Association, for instance, thinks that this applies to two companies, Punch Taverns and Enterprise Inns. If the Government are talking about tied and tenanted leases, that is not what they set out in their press release yesterday, and it is not what the industry thinks that they are talking about. There is a need for the Minister to clarify what the Government are talking about.
All tenants can now go to arbitration, but the arbitration system is funded by the industry as a whole, and large companies such as Punch Taverns and Enterprise Inns are paying the lion’s share of the cost of that self-regulatory body. Those companies will not be prepared to pay to be regulated twice: they will pay either for statutory regulation or for self-arbitration, but not for both, so I wonder what will happen to the self-regulation system. Have the Government talked to the industry about the implications of the big two or big six pulling out of funding the self-regulatory body? I also wonder how much pressure the industry will put on the smaller companies to sign up. I acknowledge that that is not such a big issue, but everybody has signed up to the self-regulatory code, and that pressure will dissipate if the Government’s new system is introduced. Legislation is being proposed in order to tackle one or two problem companies, but have the implications for the rest of the industry been fully thought through? I urge the Minister to address those concerns.
There is another problem that our pubs and landlords face: the beer duty escalator. The amount of duty that brewers and publicans are paying is killing pubs and breweries. The biggest single thing we could do to help the industry is scrap the beer duty escalator. We have had a bit of a love-in with Opposition Front Benchers this afternoon, but it would be remiss of me not to point out the record of 13 years under a Labour Government. They increased beer duty by 60%.
Toby Perkins
I have in front of me a document from the House of Commons Library which shows the amount of duty as a percentage of retail price for each of the last 12 years. In 2000, 14.5% of the retail price of a pint of beer was duty, whereas the proportion is now 15.4%, so it has hardly gone up at all.
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman must be the only person who does not think that the last Labour Government increased beer duty and introduced the beer duty escalator, and crippled pubs and the brewing industry as a result.
My time is almost up, but I urge the Minister to think about what I have said.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who made an interesting speech. He raised the issue of regulation, and the reason why this is a very important day is that the Government have finally decided to regulate in this area.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Today is an important day, but it is not as important as Friday will be. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that on Friday a pub in the town he grew up in, the Schooner, is to be reopened by me.
Ian Lucas
I am certain that that shameless piece of publicity for the good citizens of Gateshead will be fully reported by the Evening Chronicle. It is a great pleasure to be sitting beside my hon. Friend once again.
We will now be regulating in this area, but Governments of all political parties have tried all along to avoid regulation. I used to have ministerial responsibility for regulatory reform, and some Members on the Government Benches may be surprised to know that even among Labour Ministers there is great resistance to introducing regulation. In that post, I always held to the principle that regulation should be a last resort, and that wherever possible we should use non-statutory codes instead.
Where I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Burton is that I believe this is the time for us to regulate. The industry has had an enormous amount of time, and has been given every opportunity, to avoid regulation. It has failed to respond to the numerous opportunities that have been given. That is why the last Labour Government did not take the steps to regulate that this Government have suggested we should have taken. In passing, it is ironic that virtually the whole House of Commons is united with the honourable exception of the hon. Gentleman in favour of introducing regulation and legislation.
We agree that regulation needs to be introduced because the voluntary approach has failed. That is certainly what I have been hearing for a long time from licensees and tenants in Wrexham. Indeed, it was said at a meeting I held in Wrexham last summer with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We met local licensees and were told about the failure of the voluntary code. We were gravely disappointed when the consensus reached in the House was not followed through.
The Secretary of State made a measured and sensible contribution today, which I welcome. The key issue is inequality of bargaining power between the pub companies and the licensees, and it is reasonable for Government to intervene. It is important that we encourage licensees and everyone else involved in the brewing industry to contribute to the consultation. Pubs are an important part of our local communities. There is strong demand for community meeting places, as the huge increase in the number of coffee shops in Britain over the past 10 or 15 years demonstrates. Pubs can meet that demand, too, if we get this framework right. We have all done a lot of work to get to the point we have now reached, but we must not lose hold of the ball; we must carry it over the try line and achieve a truly positive outcome.
Wrexham Lager is a microbrewery that produces excellent local ale. That ale is served at the Bridge End inn in Ruabon in a neighbouring constituency, and the pub has been CAMRA pub of the year. Local micro-economies can grow as a result of brewers setting up locally and working with local pubs to produce local produce for local people to consume with gay abandon. That is the model we want to see.
What is now happening is a great triumph for the House of Commons, and I pay tribute to everyone involved. This is a good day, and we should celebrate what has been achieved, but we must also make sure that we continue to take these matters forward.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Yesterday was a great day for tied publicans, pub customers and the great British pub. The issue we are discussing is about business, community and justice. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for showing the leadership and courage to announce yesterday that they will introduce a statutory and strengthened code of practice for pub companies and an adjudicator.
I also pay a very warm tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and all the members of his Select Committee and predecessor Select Committees, including the former Chair, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for the professionalism and leadership they have shown on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West will agree that we should pay tribute to the Select Committee staff, who have done a remarkable job in uncovering the evidence and ensuring that Parliament has the information at its fingertips to make this sort of decision. I also pay tribute to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills officials who, in a short time, have conducted the review that Parliament called for and have now come forward with the right solution based on the evidence. That is to be warmly welcomed.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
While welcoming the Secretary of State’s announcement, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view on the tie-free option with an open market rent review?
Greg Mulholland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I pay tribute to him for his work as vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group. Our group should be very proud of what we have achieved; I tabled my first early-day motion five years ago, so I rather regret that I have only five minutes to go through this.
Martin Horwood
May I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey)? I am sure that the announcement will have come as some compensation for the shock defeat of Cheltenham Town by Everton earlier this week. One of the best things about the Committee’s work has been its willingness to return repeatedly to this issue and to check on progress. Is that not a very good model for other Select Committees to follow on other similar issues?
Greg Mulholland
Indeed, it is an exemplary one and it shows the power of Select Committees.
Let us remind ourselves of the issue we are dealing with, because although it is often presented as complicated, it is a simple one: after years of self-regulation and twists and turns in this matter, the giant lease pub companies still continue to take far more than is fair or reasonable from pub profits. It is as simple as that; that is the issue that has to be dealt with. I will come on to address the point made by the vice-chair of the all-party save the pub group, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), as to precisely how we should try to do that.
Let us remind ourselves of the incredible figure from the Select Committee survey: 67% of lessees with a turnover of more than £500,000 were earning only £15,000 a year or less—that is a 3% return. I know, as I am sure a lot of right hon. and hon. Members do, that some pubco tied licensees have a reasonable turnover yet are making nothing at all. That is a scandal and it is closing pubs. This is a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills debate, but we must also remember that between 2009 and 2011 Ted Tuppen, the chief executive officer of Enterprise Inns, gave himself an £848,000 bonus package over three years, at the same time as the value of his company collapsed by 80%. This is one of the worst examples of irresponsible capitalism that this country has ever seen, and yesterday must signal the end of it—I hope that it does.
We have recently seen the sale of Admiral Taverns. Has anyone noted that there has been a huge loss to the taxpayer, because of course that company had been bought by Lloyds TSB? The estimates of the loss to Lloyds, which is 43% owned by the taxpayer, are of up to £800 million. This is the economics of the madhouse.
Let us remind ourselves that the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers survey said that for the first time tied rents overtook rents for free-of-tie leases. The whole basis of the tied system was supposed to be that where more was paid for the beer, a lower rent would be paid as a result. The Select Committee, the ALMR and others have shown that that is simply not the case and that licensees are being doubly ripped off, paying higher than reasonable rents as well as exorbitant beer prices. That is, simply, why they cannot make a living.
We need to be clear that the proposal being made is not red tape or bureaucracy; it is about freeing up the British pub sector. It is about freeing up small businesses to make the decisions to be able to succeed, and to get a reasonable living from their pub. It is notable that the proposal has had the full and professional support of the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business. I can name many examples of former pubco pubs around the country that have been taken on by smaller companies, by microbreweries and by individuals and are now succeeding. It has not been the pub that has not been viable; it has been the business model. Two such examples are the Horse and Farrier in Otley, a former Enterprise Inns pub that is now successful under the ownership of Market Town Taverns, an excellent Yorkshire-based pub company, and the Roebuck, just up the road, which is a pub that Enterprise Inns had run into the ground but is now a very successful pub run by local businessman Chris Payne. So it can be done and we want it to happen more. We want it to be a result of yesterday’s announcement.
The pub companies we are discussing are zombie companies; they are not contributing to the British economy. Our concern should not be what happens to them; it should be what happens to the individual small businesses, because there is a huge growth opportunity in this sector if we can free up those licensees to be able to succeed because they employ people and buy things locally.
The response to the announcement from the British Beer and Pub Association—the pubcos association—and from the pubcos has been extraordinary, if unsurprising. Amazingly, the BBPA has said that it is “disappointing” that self-regulation has not been given enough time “to work”. The reality is that the process has been as glacial as it had been when the Select Committee reported, the BBPA has been as impotent in getting self-regulation to work and there is still an impasse on those codes.
The final thing—the big challenge—is how the Government deliver the principle that the tied tenant should not be worse off than if they were free of tie. They are taking on a considerable challenge, but it is the right one. Whether or not this approach succeeds depends on the Government getting that right, because having a code and an adjudicator, on its own, will not change the fundamental issue if the code does not deal with that matter. I believe—the all-party save the pub group will continue to campaign on this—that the best and easiest way of doing that is through the free-of-tie option with an open rent review. If the Government have other ways of doing it, we look forward to listening to them. Either way, they have to stop the overcharging and they have to save the Great British pub.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must call time on you, Mr Mulholland—appropriately.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on playing a hugely significant role in ensuring that the whole policy of the Government has changed on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the very good point that this is a good day for the House of Commons. All-party groups have had some poor publicity in the past few weeks, but groups such as the one chaired by the hon. Gentleman provide an excellent example of how parliamentarians from both Houses and from right across the political spectrum can come together to change the law on such issues. The Select Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), played an enormously important role in 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010 and last year, so that is important, too.
We must not forget that this is an Opposition day debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who opened the debate with great skill and wit. He, too, has played a very important role in making sure that the decision has been changed—over the past couple of hours, not just the past couple of days.
The biggest tribute must go to the landlords, who have approached us, their Members of Parliament. They have suffered under the scandal of the tie not only for years but for decades. In my constituency, Mr Phil Jones of the Open Hearth public house in Pontypool contacted me on the issue three years ago. I was not aware of all the detail, but he explained that we are dealing not with the tie of old—it is not the tie of a brewery such as Brains, the family brewery in south Wales—but with a much bigger issue and a much greater scandal.
It is so important that MPs across the board have dealt with the issue, because the landlords who have come to us have shown great courage in putting their case. Today is a vindication of the work they have done as much as it is of that done by anybody else.
Jeremy Corbyn
The way my right hon. Friend describes local pubs in his constituency is excellent. In my constituency, we have The Alma pub in Newington Green, an excellent gastropub that makes no money at all because of the pub companies’ voracious appetite for money. Will it be possible to deal with the outstanding cases that the voluntary regulation system has failed under the statutory system?
Paul Murphy
One would hope so; I want to conclude on the question of how the consultation process will work.
If we are dealing with a statutory code of practice, which we must be, as the voluntary one has clearly failed, its only significance lies in what is in it. It might be statutory, but if it does not cover the right things, it will be unimportant and meaningless. It must deal with the free-of-tie option and the adjudicator—and, of course, it must address the issues of scandalously high rents and beer that is too expensive. It must deal with that combination.
How will the consultation process develop? The disappointing aspect of what the Government have done in the past—not of what they are doing or will do—is that they have effectively consulted only with the pubcos and have written out various documents that were effectively provided to them by the great pubcos. Clearly, that could not go on and the bilateral association between pubcos and the Government just was not right and proper. Now, the consultation must go much further. It must include the GMB, Unite, the Fair Pint campaign, CAMRA and, of course, the Federation of Small Businesses and others. It must not be simply a formal, paper consultation, either. It must be a proper consultation in which Ministers—not civil servants—sit down with all the organisations and take into account what they say and come up with something that will satisfy the points that Members across the House have put to the Minister today.
I think everybody agrees that only a statutory code of practice will work. If it contains the sort of things that Members want and if the consultation is proper and valid, that will be good for pubs, good for our communities and good for our country.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I was pleased to contribute to the Backbench Business Committee debate on this topic on 12 January last year and want to make a further brief contribution today.
I am a great fan of the British pub, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I live next door to a pub in my constituency—as you do in the neighbouring constituency. Since the general election, I have worked three shifts behind the bar in various pubs in my constituency to learn more about the challenges they face.
In my speech last year, I talked about the situation in Pendle over the past few years. We have seen seven pubs close in Brierfield, five in Barnoldswick, seven in Nelson, three in Colne and numerous others in the surrounding areas. In that debate, I said:
“I believe that there is increasing evidence that the beer tie, as operated by the large pub companies, plays a significant role in the decline of the pub trade. I point out explicitly that I am referring only to the behaviour of some large pub companies that own more than 500 pubs, not to family-owned breweries, which tend to act much more responsibly.”
I concluded by saying that, although I normally always favour voluntary regulation over statutory regulation,
“I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the motion and calling on the Government to reconsider self-regulation and stop the large pub companies abusing their position.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 367-8.]
Mr Bellingham
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he has played in this campaign. Does he agree that another initiative the Government should consider is scrapping the escalator in the 2013 Budget? That would save the Government money, because any loss in beer duty revenue would be offset by higher beer sales and increased revenue from employment taxes. Surely the Government should consider that, too.
Andrew Stephenson
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I was very pleased that when we came into office we scrapped the increase in cider duty arranged by the previous Government, but I am even more delighted that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are now urging the Government to go further and to scrap completely the beer duty escalator.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I suggest considering another discrepancy—that supermarkets that sell beer should perhaps pay duty at a different rate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) suggested earlier, in Ireland they are considering what they call a lid tax, which would encourage people to use pubs rather than preloading on cheap booze from supermarkets. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) agree with me?
Andrew Stephenson
I agree and think that idea should be considered. I am perhaps in a minority on the Government Benches, in that I support some of the proposals to consider minimum pricing for alcohol, because that would leave unaffected the prices charged in our pubs but tackle those charged by our supermarkets, many of which use alcohol as a loss leader to drive people through the doors. I have spoken to NHS bosses in east Lancashire who also agree with the proposals. Minimum pricing would boost public health and support the pub trade.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I, too, took part in the debate a year ago and I proposed a minimum price for alcohol. In my most recent survey of pubs in my constituency, I put the issue to landlords. Some 97% agreed; 48% thought that a level of 50p per unit was right; and 48% thought that that was too low.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When I talk to landlords across Pendle about the biggest impact on their business—whether the smoking ban or pub companies—they all say that it is supermarkets selling alcohol at below cost price. Although today’s debate is important, we must not lose sight of other issues leading to a decline in the pub trade across the UK.
I warmly welcome yesterday’s Government announcement, which will provide great support to those who have campaigned on the issue and give stability for pubs and tenants. It will be good for growth and the pub trade. I also welcome the fact that the Government are focusing just on large pub companies with more than 500 pubs; that is exactly what I argued for in my speech last year.
The Government have already done a lot to support the industry. They have appointed a Minister for pubs and introduced the community right to buy, so that residents can take over and save failing pubs, as happened with The Greyhound in Barnoldswick. I welcome the reform to licensing laws to make it easier for pubs to play live music and the action on business rates. There are issues on which we can go further, such as the beer duty escalator, but a lot of progress has been made. Those steps, along with those announced yesterday, will be welcomed by tied publicans across Pendle—especially the overarching fair-dealing provision in the new code and the principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-of-tie licensee.
The new statutory code for the industry will need to get the balance right. I am not against all pub companies or even the big ones; the beer tie is a valid business model with real advantages for many. However, the abuse of the tie has led to real problems so I warmly welcome the Government’s action.
I conclude by paying tribute to CAMRA’s work on the issue. I look forward to seeing several of the east Lancashire branch members at the ninth Pendle beer festival, which runs from 31 January to 2 February at the municipal hall in Colne. If any hon. Members want to come and try any of the huge variety of ales, such as Barlick brewery’s Magic Badger, Reedley Hallows brewery’s Old Laund bitter or the classic Moorhouse’s Pride of Pendle, they will be more than welcome.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and speak in this hugely important debate.
History was made on 29 October 2011 at the Buck House hotel in Bangor-on-Dee, when Wrexham lager was officially relaunched. Wrexham lager is Britain’s oldest lager brew, first brewed in 1882. The company went through a huge array of changes until in 1992 it became part of Carlsberg-Tetley. Eight years later, the brew suffered from a faraway management decision that allowed Wrexham lager to continue being brewed, but nowhere near Wrexham. In 2002, the brew ceased totally. Its current incarnation is testimony to the work of a few dedicated individuals, including my predecessor, Martyn Jones, who was a microbiologist at the brewery.
It is vital that we encourage diversity in brewing and bring in the statutory code, because of small breweries such as the one that produces Wrexham lager. Today there has been much discussion about the number of pubs that have closed. One such is the Ty’n y Capel pub in Minera in my constituency, a hostelry with a heritage going back to the 13th century. The pub has now closed but people in that small village are determined to get it reopened. They have been awarded a lottery grant and local residents are busy purchasing shares. It is now our job, and the job of Government, to support them in reopening this vital community facility.
As the hon. Member for Pendle said, there is rightful concern about the abuse of alcohol and binge drinking. This concern is as valid today as it was in any previous generation. That is partly why this debate is so important, because only by supporting genuinely local community and family-oriented pubs can we tackle the most unpleasant aspects of the revolting all-you-can-drink subculture that has led to devastating consequences, not least domestic violence.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. Does she agree that some of the problems with the binge-drinking culture lie particularly with the very high-strength alcohols? Will she join me in urging the Government, who have already looked at differential duties, to consider a lower duty on ordinary beers that are sold in the pub and a much higher duty on the very highest-strength alcohols that often lead to some of the problems of domestic violence and binge drinking?
Susan Elan Jones
There is a very strong case for that; the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and a good point.
I could not speak in a debate such as this, and I modestly have not yet done so, without mentioning with great pride the Bridge End pub in Ruabon, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) referred. It was last year’s CAMRA pub of the year, and it has just secured another prestigious award—it is now Welsh pub of the year for 2013. It has renowned quizzes and local brews, and it not only brings together our local community but has become part of the tourist experience for everyone who visits the uniquely beautiful part of north Wales that I feel privileged to represent. That is an amazing achievement for a pub that reopened only in 2009. It is a great tribute to the pub, to the McGivern family who run it, and to Ruabon.
It is because of the Ty’n y Capel, the Bridge End, Wrexham lager and the Buck House hotel, as well as the need to take alcohol out of the abuse zone, that we need to regulate the relationship between large companies and their tenants and licensees. It is vital that we do that now, and it is so good that the House has spoken on this issue.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
There are a few things that unite this House, such as national security, respect for the monarch, the bravery of our armed forces, and the great British pint. Nottinghamshire has a great tradition of pubs and brewing. The city of Nottingham boasts some of the oldest pubs in the country in the Salutation Inn and Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem, but Sherwood has its own place in brewing history with Robin Hood and Friar Tuck, who was a noted brewer, so I feel very close to this issue. Sadly, though, Nottinghamshire has not been immune from the pub closures that we have seen across the country, and a number of great local hubs have disappeared from our villages and communities.
It is worth noting how important those establishments are to local communities. They are a great place not only to hold community events but to celebrate weddings and christenings and perhaps even to commemorate the passing of a close friend. More importantly, they are a place where people can share their woes and problems with friends and neighbours. They provide a great outlet for any social pressures that people may be feeling, in a location where there is a landlord to control the amount of alcohol they consume and to make sure they do not do it in a way that will cause them harm. We must recognise how important this great British institution is—and it is a British institution. Many Members will have gone abroad and seen how other countries attempt to recreate the British pub and how poorly they do it. It is something that we should be very proud of.
There are great examples of success in the pub industry. In my local communities there are not only great pubs but great miners’ welfare and working men’s clubs that have shown the way forward when they are given the freedom to operate successfully. It is worth noting that both the bottom and top clubs in Calverton have created a system in which they can operate, and the miners’ welfare club in Blidworth has linked to a sports club. Those are great examples of how successful they can be when given the freedom to operate.
Successive Governments of all colours have not always helped the pub industry. Whatever the motivation behind the decision to introduce the beer duty escalator, it put pressure on some landlords and built in costs to the industry that it inevitably had to pass on to consumers, and that inevitably drove some of them away to drink at home rather than at a public house.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good contribution. Does he agree that, because of the prescriptive nature of the Licensing Act 2003, the proliferation of convenience stores—unlicensed premises—has meant that pubs have been disadvantaged, and that a new cumulative impact policy will mean that pubs will now have a fighting chance against convenience stores that sell alcohol?
Mr Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do hope that that will be the case. As I said in my initial comments, it is important that people are able to drink in a social environment where someone is there to keep an eye on what happens. That is a much healthier way of drinking than sitting at home in front of the TV drinking cans of lager. We should ensure that we continue to support public houses and landlords.
Governments have not offered assistance to public houses with other pressures, such as their rateable value. Some of the larger pub companies have used the value of a public house to increase the rents and the price of beer in a deliberate ploy to push out landlords and realise the capital value of that property, in order to knock it down and build housing or retail premises. I can only imagine the pressure felt by landlords when they are exposed to a deliberate plan to push them out.
Greg Mulholland
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point—asset stripping has been a big issue. Does he agree that we also need to consider increasing protection in planning law for pubs, so that asset stripping does not continue? There is a danger, now that the pubcos know the game is up, that they may seek to sell more.
Mr Spencer
It would be worth looking at that. Some of the older public houses are of great historic and architectural value, so perhaps somebody should be looking at ensuring that they are protected.
There are some good news stories as well. The tied pub system offers an opportunity for people to become self-employed and set out on the career path of working for themselves. When it works well, it works very well, but we need to tackle those who are abusing the system. There is some discussion about how many companies are doing so. I want the Minister to consider, as part of the consultation process, lowering the threshold for the number of pubs held before they are brought into the realm of the proposed legislation.
Jessica Lee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On self-employment, does he agree that the growth and resurgence of the microbrewery industry goes hand in hand with this debate? It is flourishing, particularly in Erewash and across Derbyshire.
Mr Spencer
I agree and it is a great success story. Lots of people are setting up microbreweries and they need marketplaces in which to sell those beers. If someone is in tied premises, their hands are tied and they cannot do that. Greater flexibility in the marketplace would be welcomed and would support those people.
There are a number of examples of landlords taking on a pub that has been run down and putting in a lot of graft and work by making food available on the premises, doing quiz nights and increasing the amount of alcohol and beer they sell, only to find their rents and beer costs being pushed up so that the more successful they are, the more costs are thrown at them. It has become counter-productive.
In summary, the Government have a pretty good track record of starting to address these problems. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is pushing the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill through the House. A system similar to the groceries code to protect landlords will be welcomed. I welcome the consultation and look forward to greater protection for our pubs in future.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
May I take the opportunity to wish you a very happy new year, Mr Deputy Speaker?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). I am sure that such a benign and jovial fellow is not usually given to conspiracy theories, and he was right to highlight some of the darker practices, such as tenants being deliberately forced out of a lease in order for the pubco to benefit. He was also right to highlight the positive role that good landlords can play in helping people to develop a healthy relationship with alcohol.
I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who have stuck doggedly with this agenda, even before many of us arrived in 2010, to get us to this point. In particular, I praise the role of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. I regret that the Scottish National party Member only popped into this debate for a short time, because there is a lesson for the Scottish Government in how effective genuinely empowered and independent Select Committees can be in promoting good governance. I hope that some SNP Members are watching the screens in their offices and will take that message to heart.
So far, I have been in quite a jovial mood, considering that I am just 60 hours into nicotine withdrawal. The Secretary of State today showed that he has the sensitive underbelly of the Government. He did not seem happy that there was criticism of the time that it has taken to get to this point—like many Members, I stood here almost a year ago asking for effective regulation of this sector—but it really is his own fault. When he was a real Lib Dem—rather like the Campaign for Real Ale—he prided himself on calling for the quick introduction of stronger regulation of the banks. Whereas he would probably give himself a 10 for his foxtrot when it came to the banks, we might score him slightly lower on his gentle waltz towards the effective regulation of this sector. I hope that he has not left the Chamber because he was so sensitive that he was struggling to cope with the criticism.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for talking about the contribution that pubs make to so many of our communities. The Winton Arms is the only pub in the village where I live in East Lothian and it is very important. It is developing in the way that my hon. Friend spoke about. It now has space for a hairdresser, where beauty therapy is also available, and it hosts a coffee shop with home baking. Members can guess which of those two I tend to spend more time on. At new year, when little public transport was available, I was able to go there to see in the new year safely and walk home.
It has been a wasted year. In that time, many of us, including the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), have seen landlords finally give up on a relationship that just was not working. That has happened at the Tyneside Tavern in Haddington in my constituency. The landlord, Neil Forbes, an ex-policeman who ran a superb operation, has finally given up. I have attended meetings with Neil and his wife, and have been copied in to an endless stream of e-mails. The experience reminds me of the cartoon “Tom and Jerry”, in which Tom gets a bump on his head, he pushes it in and one pops out on the other side. Neil would make some progress getting fairer terms in one area, but then Scottish & Newcastle would suddenly introduce a charge in another area and set the situation back. Although I deeply regret that he is walking away from the business, I understand the effect that it was having on him and his family.
The Government were a little late in finally agreeing to make the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill a real Bill with the power to deliver change. I hope that they will not be so reticent this time, but will realise that if we are to have fairness in this sector, we need comprehensive regulation with real teeth.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is an honour to be the last Government Back-Bencher to speak—it is a bit like queuing for last orders. As a member of the all-party save the pub and beer groups, I welcome the debate. I have shown my hand at trying to run a pub, not particularly successfully, and like many Members who are present I have been known to frequent a pub.
It is a real credit to the Government that we now have a Minister responsible for pubs, and if he ever wishes to visit our local brewery, Arkell’s, I will certainly make him welcome. I am a little concerned, however, because we have a passionate shadow Minister who supports pubs but has announced that he is teetotal for the month of January, and the shadow Minister in the February 2011 Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), declared not only that he was teetotal but that he did not visit pubs. We need the other team to play their part. However, there is clearly cross-party concern about pubs, which are at the heart of our communities.
Although the number of pub closures has slowed, it is still somewhere in the region of 18 a week, which has to act as a wake-up call for all of us. The Government’s decision is a credit to organisations such as CAMRA and the Federation of Small Businesses, and to the countless local residents who have e-mailed all MPs to raise the issue.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a champion of pubs in Swindon, but may I urge him also to give some focus to rural pubs, which are under greater pressures than those in towns? I see that every day in Fylde.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. That situation arises particularly because of the value of rural pubs if their owners transfer them to other categories of use. It is welcome that the Government are looking to tighten up the relevant planning rules, which will help protect a number of rural pubs. A few in my constituency need that protection.
I welcome yesterday’s announcement in principle. The new code will ensure fair practices on a number of issues, including rents and the price that publicans pay for beer. Crucially, the adjudicator will manage the matter of fairness, because it is often the big guy against the little guy, and just because someone is good at running a pub, that does not mean that they are a legal expert.
We must not forget the absolute need for transparency on costs, particularly when a publican signs up to their deal. It is a bit like having a franchise. Legally the deal says, “You will buy the product at this price,” and as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said, it includes matters such as PAT testing of vending machines and insurance. It is not just about the beer.
I urge caution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made a good and sensible speech that brought some realism to the debate. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must be careful about mandating a free-of-tie option with open market rent review, because the pubco tie is a good business model that allows people to become entrepreneurial small business owners without having to have huge savings to buy an expensive building. Just because some have abused the system, that does not mean that we should completely remove it. We just need to ensure that those who abuse it are dealt with and that others are given adequate protections.
We all have good examples of family breweries working with landlords, such as Arkell’s in my constituency, which has just over 100 pubs. It is in breweries’ interests to do so, because if their landlords succeed, they will continue to sell beer, which is what makes their business thrive. We have to look at the wider picture and be careful not to chase a cheap headline. I support the principle of what is proposed, but we must act on the consultation. Those with expertise, knowledge and first-hand experience should feed into it. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made that point, and I echo it.
We must also celebrate some of the examples of good news. Wetherspoon’s continues to buck the market trend and expand. When I am having breakfast in a Wetherspoon’s pub, I often admire how much money they probably take before the majority of other pubs open their doors at lunchtime.
The Government are considering the community right to bid, giving communities a fairer chance to bid to take over pubs. Again, that would be particularly useful in rural communities. They are launching a £19 million support programme to help community organisations; ensuring that planning policies provide for the use of pubs and guard against their unnecessary loss; and providing help with business rates. They have scrapped the previous Government’s plan for a 10% rise in cider duties, but they now need to do the same in the case of the beer duty escalator. As we chase increased exports, let us take a moment to rejoice that 1.25 billion pints of beer were exported last year. That is something to which we can all raise a glass.
We are making it easier for pubs to play live music. I have carried out a number of surveys with local pub users, asking what makes a good pub. We know that society has changed and that more often than not, pure straightforward drinking pubs will struggle these days. Pubs need a combination of good food, good entertainment, live music and pub quizzes—going that extra mile to make it a destination for local communities. Moves to exempt pubs from unnecessary health and safety inspections would also be welcome. I urge people to get behind this issue, which has clear cross-party support, and engage with the consultation. Let us hope for a better year for the pub industry in 2013.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for championing this cause and pressing for and securing this debate. Hon. Members may not be aware that I have spent a considerable amount of time researching this subject over many years—perhaps too intensely on some occasions—and I wish to draw on some of that research by telling a story about Mary Spence, a publican in Rochdale who runs the Hunters Rest just off Syke common. One reason I am telling Mary’s story is because it addresses a point raised by Simon Townsend, the chief operating officer at Enterprise Inns. On 12 December he said in the Morning Advertiser that all he had ever asked was to be provided with
“clear evidence, which we can pursue to see whether we have done something wrong,”.
Well, I believe the way Mary Spence is being treated is wrong and that Mary’s story provides clear evidence that Enterprise Inns has little, if any, regard for customers at the Hunters Rest and indeed the wider community. I believe that Enterprise Inns is doing something wrong; it may not be illegal, but it is certainly wrong. I have been in the Hunters Rest on a few occasions and I can tell it is a well run pub. Mary and Tom work exceptionally hard; they start at six or seven in the morning and finish after midnight. They keep a smart, clean pub that provides bed and breakfast and pub food. Indeed, Hilary Devey, one of the entrepreneurial dragons on the BBC’s “Dragons’ Den”, worked at the Hunters Rest while filming “The Secret Millionaire” for Channel 4, but even such an accomplished entrepreneur as she could not work wonders under the arrangements of Enterprise Inns and I will explain why.
Mary Spence is 16 years through a 25-year lease with Enterprise Inns and she has had enough. Enterprise Inns controls most of the business—it sets prices, determines what work should be done on the property, sets the rent and decides what beer should be sold. For example, Mary could buy a 22-gallon barrel of Foster’s for £195 but she has no choice but to pay Enterprise Inns £291. She could buy Carling wholesale for £201 but has no choice but to buy it from Enterprise Inns for £303. That affects not only Mary Spence but her customers. Therefore, when Mr Townsend asks, “What’s wrong?”, it is that Mary Spence is paying around £500 a week extra for her beer.
Simon Danczuk
I will not take interventions because I am conscious of the time. The other big problem with Enterprise Inns is that Mary has to maintain the property both inside and out. She had to pay for a fire escape to be fitted and for fire alarms throughout the building. She has invested her life savings in that pub over the past 16 years, but although the place is immaculate, what does she have to show for it? Enterprise Inns is doing all it can to ensure that she leaves the pub with as little financial return as possible. Mary pays an inflated rent but gets nothing done to the property. She pays inflated prices for beer but gets nothing in return. Last Friday, the regional manager of Enterprise Inns said that he could not even guarantee her a packet of beer mats! Mr Townsend asks what is wrong with his business model; those are the things that are wrong with it.
I am pleased the Government have moved on the statutory code, but I have concerns about the tied option, which should be kept open, and about open market rent reviews, which the Minister should consider.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
My wonderful city of York has been an important tourist destination for centuries. People are drawn to the city by its history and its wonderful buildings, including York Minster and the city walls, but also by the city’s pubs, some of which date back to the 1400s.
When I meet York members of the Licensed Victuallers Association and York CAMRA, they always raise the problems of pub companies. Like other Members, I carry out a survey from time to time of pubs and clubs in my constituency. When I did so in 2009, I found that 41% of landlords blamed pub companies’ unfair terms of trade for their falling profits, but last year when I carried out a similar survey, I found that the number of pubs complaining about pub companies had risen to 62%. The problem of the pub companies misusing their power is getting worse.
After conducting last year’s survey, I wrote to the Treasury. I told the then Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), that pub companies had not abided by guidelines and that the Government should consider introducing a statutory code to regulate pubcos’ relationship with their tenants. In July, she replied:
“Regarding your comments on the relationship between pub companies and licensees…The Government does not…consider it appropriate to make a statutory intervention in setting the terms of commercial, contractual relationships.”
I congratulate the Government warmly on changing their policy and agreeing to a statutory code of practice.
Pub companies came into existence after a previous attempt by the Government of the day to deal with the problem of tied pubs—I believe it happened following the Beer Orders of 1989. Breweries were instructed to sell off their tied pubs, which were bought by pub companies, but that did not solve the problem, because the pub companies imposed a tie of their own. The tie is the problem. In the new regime that the Secretary of State announced yesterday, the tie must go.
If a property company with a shop sought to lease it as a boutique, for example, with a term in the lease that it could sell clothes from a particular manufacturer or of a particular brand only—or sell clothes supplied only by the landlord—the Office of Fair Trading would rule it out of order pretty quickly, and yet that is exactly the relationship between a tied pub and a pub company. I congratulate the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on its work. It has argued forcefully for a statutory code for pub companies to include a free-of-tie option, which the Labour party motion supports.
Parliament needs to avoid making the mistake it made in 1989 when the brewers were required to sell their tied pubs. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in his seat listening to the debate. The statutory code he proposes should start from the presumption that there is no tie. I hope that option is covered in the consultation. If we say to a relatively weak and powerless small businessman or woman that, under the code of practice, there should be an option of no tie, many will still be bludgeoned by big, tough multi-million pound pub companies into taking a tie. Therefore, the default should be that there is no tie unless it is opted for by the landlord. I hope we consult on that basis.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
We are pressed for time and other hon. Members want to speak, so I will truncate my remarks on what is an important debate.
I want to mention the role of local breweries in my constituency. Dick Simpson runs the Nene Valley brewery in Oundle, which started brewing in 2011. He told me that pubcos make it very hard for pub owners to show initiative. If pubs start to make a handsome profit, the pubcos whack the rent up so the landlord sees little of the extra cash. Local breweries, such as the Nene Valley brewery, the Great Oakley brewery, Rockingham Ales and many others in my constituency, would benefit from being able to sell to all the pubs in my area. Indeed, everybody would benefit: the pubs, the consumers, the local brewers, the local economy, the environment—because it would reduce beer miles—and tourism.
In autumn last year, I was delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) to my constituency for some active research in my local pubs. He came to some of the rural pubs, such as a beautiful pub in Stanwick, and to the thriving pubs in Corby town. He also saw, however, that many of my local pubs are struggling. Some have closed down already; some may face closure in the near future. One reason for that, as has been said, is the profoundly unequal relationship between tenants and lessee landlords. In the past, if a pub owner was tied, he paid more for the beer but had the benefit of discounted rent. As we know, pubcos have increasingly put up both the rent and beer prices.
I will make my remarks even briefer than I intended. There are two critical issues on which I want to press the Front Bench. I recently sat on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Public Bill Committee, and we know that the role of the Bill’s proposed ombudsman will only be as strong as the code itself. One of my questions relates to the power to fine, on which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) gave a big concession on that Bill. The power to fine in yesterday’s announcement is only where there are severe breaches. I would like to know how broadly the Government might define “severe breaches”. If the definition is too limited, this code will not have sufficient teeth.
My concluding point is that I, of course, agree with the tests that my hon. Friend has set out, in particular the principle that a tied licensee should be no worse off than a free-tie licensee. That does not go far enough: I want a tie-free option.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) for being collegiate. I wish other hon. Members had been. I will be as brief as I can.
My constituents, Joe and Betty Hynes, are observing the debate. They are also active in the all-party group, the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Fair Pint campaign. They are also known to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), as well as hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because for 23 years they have lived and worked at the Old Parr’s Head in Blythe road in my constituency, which is a very Fine Public house. In 1997, it was bought by Punch Taverns. A few years’ ago, Joe and Betty Hynes acquired a second pub, the Chancery in Fulham. They did that because they wanted to be successful in business and to provide employment. Unfortunately, when they had to surrender the licence of that pub this year, Punch Taverns was taking 124% of their profits. Six years’ ago, Punch Taverns was taking 48% of their profits on their existing pub. This year, save for any agreements that Punch Taverns will keep to, which it is not showing much sign of doing, it will take 91% of those profits. That will mean that Joe and Betty will effectively be living on less than the minimum wage. They have lost their life savings in one venture, because they have been forced out. They are now living on minimum income, yet have provided those two fantastic establishments for my constituents over a long period of time.
The Secretary of State indicated that there have been many pressures on pubs, such as the beer duty escalator, the smoking ban and unfair competition. Trying to deal with those problems is bad enough. If, in addition, pubcos decide that they will take none of the risk or any cut in their profit and put all of that burden on to publicans, we end up in the situation we are in now, where people are being driven out of business and pubs are going bankrupt every week in my constituency. I will, of course, try to intervene as the MP, but it is sometimes difficult to do so in a contractual dispute.
I end on this point, and I wish I had more time to do justice to Joe and Betty’s case. I hope, having seen delay and more pubs going to the wall than is necessary, that there will be the quick implementation of an effective statutory code so that this David and Goliath battle can be evened up and people like Joe and Betty can get the proper reward for a lifetime of work and service to their community.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I apologise to Members who have not got in, despite having sat here throughout the debate, but we have to move on to the winding-up speeches.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I also apologise to the Members who have not got in, because they have an important contribution to make to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). To Members who have not had a night out with him, I can highly recommend it, and I was looking forward to his contribution. Perhaps we will find time later on. I also refer the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, as a former licensee of a pubco and other companies. I will run through some of my own experiences shortly.
This afternoon’s debate has emphasised the importance of the great British pub and the contribution that landlords and landladies make to our communities in every country of the United Kingdom. I would like to pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, since I have been in the House, has been a dogged campaigner on this issue, filling our inboxes on the subject. He deserves great credit for everything he has done, and today is a great triumph for him, as well as for everyone else in the House.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Select Committee, who has continued to pursue the matter through the Select Committee, showing the power that those Committees can have in the House. I hope that other Chairs will take note. If anyone has time to read the contribution from the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is not in his place, and his robust performance against the pubcos in the Committee, it is certainly worth looking at. And, of course, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who did a lot in this field as the former pubs Minister, and to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the former Chair of the Select Committee.
I also add a special tribute to my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). By bringing this Opposition day debate to the Chamber, he rang the last orders bell on the Government to act. Without that determination to get this issue back on the agenda, I suspect we would not be here today with the progress that has been made. Despite his dry January, he does a lot personally to support the industry—although he could do a lot more by standing his round a little more often! Given that it is a dry January for him, however, I shall certainly be buying the drinks after this debate.
Just 12 months ago, we had a robust Back-Bench debate on this issue and the House agreed unanimously that the self-regulation approach should be reviewed and a statutory code considered. It is clear, however, that consecutive BIS Ministers have ignored the wishes of the House and have refused to listen to the broad coalition of groups calling for action. To give credit to the Secretary of State and his Ministers, however, on the eve of this debate, he said that the current system had failed and that he would introduce a new statutory code.
It is worth reflecting again on the scale of the issue: 46% of tied publicans earn less than £15,000 a year. Crucially, that includes more than 50% of lessees with a turnover of more than £500,000 per annum—a return of only 3%. The total number of tied pubs has fallen by more than 3,000 since 2008, which compares with an increase in the number of free-tie pubs. Furthermore, as many hon. Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), the Wetherspoons model demonstrates that profits and sales can continue to rise in what is a difficult market. It would seem that the abuse of the tied contract is the problem, as many publicans will already be paying rent at the market value or higher.
I shall give some examples of my own experience. I was in discussions about a premises in Edinburgh, but was concerned that the same company had a managed house just around the corner that had been closed for some time. I was told that it was to have a full refit and reopen shortly, but would be a niche product and would not be in direct competition with my premises. When it eventually opened, it was an almost identical offering and was selling beer to the consumer at less than the value at which I could buy it from the same company.
In another premises, albeit with a different landlord, we asked if we could buy out of our bottled beer tie, because a supermarket had opened up next door and was selling the same products at a third of the price that we were contracted to buy them for. We were told that we could buy out of the tie, but at a cost of £1,600 per annum on the rent. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), have raised the issues with off-trade and on-trade. That might be a subject for a useful future debate.
My last and probably most shocking example from that time—this issue has also been illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Leeds North West—concerns the major pubco that I rented a hotel from. We received a good deal for the hotel because the premises were up for demolition, but the pubco told us—and I quote—that any increase in our profitability or trade would be reflected in a regular, upward-only rent review. Crucially, the business development manager at the time used to brag about the list of tenants he was fining or about to fine for “buying out”—the term for purchasing products outwith the contract. He got a bonus for fining people. That was the reality of the situation at the time and shows just how much pressure tenants were under.
Let me quickly give the House another example. I did a bit of analysis today. I phoned up a supplier and, with no credit history, asked how much I could buy a 36-gallon barrel of standard lager for. I was quoted £356.73. The list price on Enterprise’s current price list is £510.22, so it is quite clear where the problem lies.
I warmly welcome the new Minister to her place. She has changed her mind on a number of issues, including fining and the groceries code adjudicator. I am delighted that she has come with some proposals today that might make the situation better. We were on the verge of having a groceries code adjudicator without teeth. I hope that she has learnt that lesson and that we do not end up with a G and T with all tonic and no gin. I also want to challenge her on what “no worse off than a free-of-tie licence” means. Does it mean no worse off in terms of profitability, turnover, overall cash or, indeed, the whole package of measures?
I do not have time to run through the other issues, but I want to highlight some of the statements made by other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) spoke of how her local pub had diversified into other things, such as a beauty salon, and challenged us to suggest whether she spent more time there or in the bar. Given her natural beauty, I would suggest she spent more time in the bar. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) gave an interesting analysis of Punch Taverns, which is now taking 124% of profit, rather than the 41% from some time ago. The story of Mary Spence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) told us about, emphasises how bad the industry can get.
On the eve of this debate the Secretary of State panicked, but he has announced stuff that Labour Members will be accepting, although we will monitor the progress of the code’s development closely to ensure that, as the Prime Minister would put it, it does exactly what it says on the tin. I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken today may be getting a free pint in their local pub, given the amount of free publicity they have given them. I am off to do a pub crawl around all those pubs after this debate and you are very welcome to join me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I thank all Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. We have heard speeches from 18 Members and interventions from many more.
I particularly thank the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for the work they have done on this issue over many years, which is a good example of the effectiveness of Select Committees working in a persistent, constructive and responsible way. Many other Members have campaigned on this issue for many years, including the hon. Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who made a typically powerful contribution to today’s debate and has done so much with the all-party save the pub group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who introduced a private Member’s Bill a couple of years ago. I also thank the many thousands of constituents up and down the country who have taken an interest in this issue, whether as landlords or, as the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) put it, “practitioners” of pubs.
In what was a generally consensual debate, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) proposed potential court action. I can reassure him that it is not necessary, because the Morning Advertiser corrected the article that had incorrectly attributed quotations to me. I can confirm to the House that I did not say that the self-regulatory approach was working.
Today we have heard stories from Members in all sorts of constituencies of publicans who have faced real injustice and unfairness—horror stories about rent hikes out of kilter with the market, about extra charges and add-ons that they did not know about when they signed up and about people who have been driven out of business. For me, one of the most shocking figures is the comparison between the incomes of tied lessees and of those publicans who are in non-tied leases. Almost half of tied lessees earn less than £15,000 a year. That is an astonishing figure, when we consider the long hours that people put into running their pubs, and the fact that that income is often shared by a couple. The figure for non-tied lessees earning less than £15,000 a year is 22%, or one in five. The Government will be acting on this, and I welcome the broad cross-party support for what we are doing.
We have heard some horror stories this afternoon, but there have also been some lighter notes in the debate. We have heard about pubs being the scene of a range of events. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) mentioned the “dragon”, Hilary Devey, working undercover in a pub. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) talked about being the first Cornish MP to pull a pint in her local pub. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) talked about the three shifts that he had done as a barman in his local pubs, and told the House about the Pendle beer festival. I understand that you also have a pub as a neighbour, Mr Deputy Speaker. We heard from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) about the triumph of the Bridge End winning CAMRA pub of the year, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield told us about his drinking mineral water in his local pubs. Perhaps the most touching story was that of the romance and engagement of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero).
The Chair of the Select Committee rightly said that what we are doing will not be a panacea, but it will help. Members raised a range of other issues, including the beer duty escalator, on which we had a debate in the House recently. That is a matter for the Chancellor, and I am sure that Treasury colleagues will be following this debate closely through Hansard.
Jo Swinson
I am sorry. Owing to the lack of time, I must press ahead with my summation.
A differential beer duty was suggested, but it would not be possible to introduce such a scheme on the basis of where alcohol was being sold. However, the Government have already acted on a differential duty in relation to the strength of beer. In October 2011, the duty on high-strength beer rose and the duty on low-strength beer fell. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle made an important point about minimum pricing, which could help pubs to regain an advantage when competing against low-priced supermarket booze.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said that regulation might not be needed. That might not be a popular argument today, but I understand what he is saying. It is right that the Government should regulate only as a last resort, and that we should seek alternative solutions first. We have sought solutions, however. The industry was put on notice last year and, sadly, it has not delivered. My hon. Friend also mentioned his concern about a two-tier system. It is right that we should focus regulation on those with the greatest market power. That is proportionate because the evidence shows that the greatest problems are in that part of the industry.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, the consultation sets out that that regulation would relate to the six largest pub companies, with a threshold of 500 tied or tenanted properties. Those companies would be Punch, Enterprise, Marston’s, Greene King, Admiral and Star. Our consultation will listen to views on what the right definition and the threshold should be. I hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that the threshold should be lower than 500. I encourage hon. Members who have a view on those issues to contribute to the consultation.
There has been much debate on the free-of-tie option this afternoon, and there are arguments on both sides. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said that the tie must go, but I believe that the beer tie can be important, especially for small family breweries such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). Indeed, in January 2011, CAMRA stated:
“Without the right to tie pubs, the Family Brewers wouldn’t bring their beers to the bar. Closures amongst the smaller brewers would be inevitable. The tie is a viable way for them to run their pubs.”
The problem is not the tie, as such, but the abuse of the tie.
Jo Swinson
I will give way briefly; I am conscious that I must respond to the debate.
Toby Perkins
There has been a great deal of cross-party agreement in the debate, and many people will be watching it on television. Will the Minister confirm that she will support our motion, so that we can all work together and ensure that we get to where we want to be?
Jo Swinson
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we will support the amendment, which does something that his motion does not do—namely, it proposes the introduction of an adjudicator, on which the Government are going to consult. I believe that that is essential, but it is missing from the hon. Gentleman’s motion. However, I welcome the fact that he has brought this topic forward for debate today.
“A new independent statutory code of practice should be imposed to uphold the prime principle—that the tied tenant should be no worse off than if free of tie”.
Those are not my words, but those of the Independent Pub Confederation. That is the key principle on which the new statutory code should be based. This will be looked at across the board—taking into account the profits, the prices, the insurance, other benefits and the rents—and the adjudicator will be able to look at the whole picture. Having higher beer prices mitigated by lower rents and business support is a valid business model, but having higher beer prices and higher rents is just a rip-off. As the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, the combination of the two is what causes the problems.
Let me deal briefly with the process and timetable. The Government propose a consultation of six weeks, and we will publish it as soon as possible in the spring. The adjudicator would have to be established by primary legislation, and we are keen to press ahead with the timetable. The House’s support will be helpful in that regard. We will consult on the details in the consultation, and I encourage those interested to ensure that they set out their views. To respond to an earlier query, the consultation will include the future role of self-regulation and of the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The power to fine, which the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) mentioned, is certainly envisaged for severe cases, which will of course be decided by the adjudicator.
In conclusion, we want to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, and the Government’s action on pubs will help to achieve both objectives. It will create a stronger economy because pubs are an important part of it, and this will help them to thrive. As for a fair society, pubs are also an important part of our communities and this action will help to put a stop to lessees being treated unfairly by large companies and to abuse of the beer tie. This is good for publicans, good for pubs and good for the public.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Rising Cost of Transport
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes the rising cost of transport is adding to the financial pressures facing many households; notes that the Government failed to honour its pledge to cap this month’s rail fare rises at 1 per cent above inflation, resulting in some fares rising by as much as 9.2 per cent; recognises that this was a direct consequence of the Government’s decision to give back to the private train operators the right to increase fares by up to an additional 5 per cent beyond the increase set by Ministers; further notes that bus fares increased on average by more than twice the rate of inflation in 2012; calls on the Government to ban train operators from increasing fares beyond strict limits and to rule out the proposed introduction of a new category of super peak ticket which would increase the burden on hard-pressed commuters; and further calls on Ministers to support transport authorities pursuing Quality Contracts to bring accountability to bus fares, instead of using Better Bus Area funding to penalise authorities seeking to get better value for money for these taxpayer-funded services.
I begin by thanking and paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who has decided, because of a head injury, to step down from his duties on the Front Bench. He has been an excellent, hard-working colleague, full of ideas, and I thank him very much for all the work he has done in my team. I know that he will be back.
The cost of transport is rising; it is rising by more than the rate of inflation—by much more in many cases. That increase is being fuelled by an out-of-touch Government and Transport Ministers who just do not seem to understand the pain they are imposing on hard-working people. Returning to work after the new year, those who commute by rail found that the price of their tickets had increased by an average of 4.2%, and by as much as 9.2% on some routes. Over the past year, bus fares have increased by more than twice the rate of inflation and motorists have found that VAT at 20% wipes out any relief they have had from the deferral of increases in fuel duty. Yet most people are not seeing their wages go up by anything like as much as those increases, and for many their wages or salaries are stagnant or falling.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not acknowledge that if her party were still in government and fuel duty had been 13p a litre more than it is today under this Government, bus fares would have increased even more?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman knows that his Government have cut the bus service operators grant by 20%. As for any policies that a re-elected Labour Government may have carried out on fuel duty, it is just speculation to say that they would or would not have been cut or kept; it is completely speculative to suggest that there may not have been any changes in the intervening two years—
Maria Eagle
No, I think once is enough.
Together with the rising costs of housing, fuel and food, the rising cost of transport is adding to the cost-of-living crisis now making life much tougher for households across Britain. Yet Transport Ministers and the Government are so out of touch with the pressures that families are under that they are making it easier for private train companies and bus companies to hike fares and increase their profits—
Maria Eagle
I will in a moment. These companies are doing that off the back of struggling commuters and passengers. The pain is not yet over. This year, we are set to see even greater pressure from the rising cost of transport as the Government unveil their rail fares and ticketing review, with proposals for even higher fares at the times when most people need to travel.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is not the really sneaky thing the Government’s allowing train companies to regain the power of so-called flexibility, which enables them to increase rail fares by up to 5% on top of the regulated fare increase? The Labour Government removed that power from them in 2009.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Even now, this Government could put that right by simply removing that power from the train companies, as we did in office. I invite the Secretary of State, who is relatively new to his job, to consider that.
We have Transport Ministers and a Government who are so out of touch with the pressures that families are under that they are making it easier for the private train and bus companies to hike fares and increase their profits off the back of struggling commuters and passengers.
Henry Smith
I am grateful that my persistence has paid off. Will the hon. Lady acknowledge the considerable investment in rail? For example, my constituency has a £26 million upgrade of Three Bridges station, a £53 million upgrade of Gatwick station and extra rolling stock from Thameslink and Southern. The travelling public are seeing real improvements.
Maria Eagle
I acknowledge that over a number of years, under the current Government and the previous Government, there has been big investment in rail travel. That is a good thing and I do not deny that.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I want to point out that the situation is not uniform. In my constituency, London Midland has sacked the people who work in the ticket office and installed machines and CCTV cameras that do not work. Despite a promise made by the Secretary of State to the House in a recent statement, there is no evidence that security has been improved at all.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. Significant problems are occurring with London Midland’s handling of its franchise. I know that Ministers are considering that and I hope that they will be tough and ensure that the passengers—
Maria Eagle
We will wait and see what action the Government take before we conclude that they are being tough—I am just encouraging them to be tough.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Maria Eagle
I want to make a little progress, but I might allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene a little later.
The pain is not over yet. This year is set to see even greater pressures from the rising cost of transport as the Government unveil their rail fares and ticketing review, with proposals for even higher fares at the times when most people need to travel. Ministers are to reform bus funding in a way that, deliberately it would seem, will penalise transport authorities that seek to regulate bus fares in the way they are regulated in London.
In contrast, as we set out in our motion, Labour would be taking steps now to ease the pressure on those who rely on our public transport system, standing up to the train and bus companies on behalf of commuters. We would be on the side of passengers, not vested interests.
Last September this House debated rail fares, and to the frustration of commuters—and many on the Government Benches, judging from what they told their local papers—the Prime Minister marched his MPs through the Lobby to oppose Labour’s motion to cap fare rises at 1% above inflation. Of course, Liberal Democrat MPs were marching alongside them. Yet within a month of Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs voting down Labour’s attempt to help commuters, we had a U-turn. On the eve of his party conference, the Prime Minister finally said that he agreed with Labour, and pledged to cap the annual fare rise at 1% above inflation. As commuters found when they returned to work this month, however, that was yet another broken promise from this Prime Minister and this Government, because fares were capped not at 1% above inflation, but at 9.2%. The reason the Prime Minister could not honour his pledge to commuters is clear: he was simply unable or unwilling to stand up to the vested interests in the private train companies. They had lobbied hard before the last election to get an agreement that the Conservative party would give back to them a power that had been taken away by the Labour Government when times got tough—the right to turn the annual cap on fare rises into an average, turning a cap of 1% above inflation into fare rises of as much as 9.2%.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am surprised by what the hon. Lady says. She said that the previous Labour Government took that power away from the train operators when times got tough. Will she confirm that times got tough in 2010, which coincided with a general election?
Maria Eagle
No. There was a rule change that would have applied each and every year after the decision was made. Lord Adonis, who was in post at the time as Transport Secretary, took that decision and had been absolutely clear about it. If anybody in the House doubts that, they can read the Select Committee on Transport report on rail fares and franchises, published in July 2009. Lord Adonis told the Committee:
“The Government's intention is, therefore, that in future the cap should apply to individual regulated fares, not just to the average of each fares basket.”
He did not say “for one year” but “in future.” As Lord Adonis reaffirmed last year, when the issue came up:
“It was my firm intention to continue the policy for subsequent years, and I was mystified when…my successor”—
that is, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond)—
“reinstated the fares flexibility. The only people who supported this change were the train companies.”
I do not therefore accept that the cap was a one-off or that it would not have continued into the future under a Labour Government.
How have the Government reacted? The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), told passengers to stop complaining because fares are
“not nearly as expensive as is being presented”,
and then told peak-time commuters that they were paying for a premium service. I assure the Under-Secretary that many passengers do not feel that that describes their experience in getting to work in the morning on an overcrowded train. They do not agree with him that fares are not expensive.
Meanwhile, it was revealed that the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), was avoiding taking the train altogether, and had a chauffeur bill to and from his constituency—a commute that would take just half an hour by train on a season ticket that would cost taxpayers not £80,000 a year but £4,500 a year. Transport Ministers—
Maria Eagle
No, I will make some progress. We have out-of-touch Transport Ministers and a Prime Minister not willing to enforce his own commitment on fares.
Mr Burns
Will the hon. Lady withdraw the accusation that she has just made—that the service to Chelmsford cost £80,000? If she had done her homework or was being fair, she would know that pool cars cost the Department a flat rate of £80,000 for the year, regardless of how many journeys they make or how far they travel. Even if the car stopped coming to Chelmsford, the flat fee would still be paid at the same level.
Maria Eagle
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to argue that he is actually saving money for the taxpayer, and I will leave that for those who wish to report on these things to decide.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am rather disappointed that at the start of the hon. Lady’s speech she did not acknowledge that there had been significant increases in rail fares under the previous Labour Administration. Her argument would hold more water—we are all concerned about rising prices—if she had acknowledged that that had happened under her Administration as well.
Maria Eagle
I do acknowledge that there were rail fare rises of RPI plus 1 under the previous Labour Government, but when times got tough after the global banking crisis and financial crash, the last Government acted to protect commuters. As households struggled, we immediately changed the rules to force train companies to apply strictly the cap on train fares. That was 1% above inflation, not the up to 9.2% that we have seen this year. That rule change would have applied each and every year from then on—
Maria Eagle
If the hon. Gentleman allows me to answer the point put to me, I might consider giving way to him a little later.
Putting train companies before commuters is what this Government are doing; when times got tough, we acted to try to support commuters. In future, if we get the chance, we will restore the rule and put it into law so that passengers will always know that the cap on fare rises set by Ministers is the one they see at the ticket office.
As I have said before, I believe that the previous Labour Government should have been bolder in taking on the train companies and they should have done so sooner, but the important fact is that we acted when times got really tough. This Government are just clobbering commuters even more.
Maria Eagle
No. I wish to make a little progress.
I think I have answered the point made by the Minister of State. If he is trying to argue that paying for a car is saving money because he is not having to pay for commuter rail fares, that is extraordinary.
Maria Eagle
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Buried in the innocuous-sounding Government paper “Rail Fares and Ticketing Review” is a plan to introduce a new category of ticket—the super-peak ticket. It proposes
“a ‘high-peak’ fare priced higher than the current Anytime day fare/a season ticket priced higher than the current season ticket.”
So a commuter who is already paying thousands of pounds for their season ticket faces this year being told that their very expensive purchase is not valid on every train, even if they have no choice about when they have to get to work, and most people do not have that choice. With a captive market, train companies will be allowed to hike fares even higher than they are now on services that suffer the most overcrowding and where there is already no guarantee of a seat. Only this Government would think that the answer to overcrowding on our trains is to price all but the richest off those services. The Defence Secretary gave away this Government’s view of the railways when he was Transport Secretary—“a rich man’s toy”, he called them.
When these tickets are introduced, an even nastier shock is awaiting commuters because the Government’s paper includes modelling on how much the cost of these new super-peak tickets could rise each year. Here is what the Government chose to include in their paper as apparently the favoured option:
“some fares (in the high peak) rising by an additional 7% annually (an additional 40% over the course of five years)”.
So there it is in black and white: new super-peak tickets introduced, with their cost then rising by 7% a year and 40% in just five years. We agree with the Transport Committee, which last week in its report, “Rail 2020”, urged the Government to
“rule out forms of demand management which would lead to even higher fares for commuters on peak time trains”.
The Secretary of State should take the opportunity of today’s debate to do just that, and I hope he will. If he does not, Labour will oppose any attempt to penalise commuters with new super-peak tickets.
The Government are not only hiking the cost of travelling by train but making it harder to buy the cheapest fare by supporting the campaign for the private train companies to close ticket offices or reduce their opening hours. The Government’s paper, “Rail Fares and Ticketing Review”, says:
“Ticket offices are the most expensive way of selling tickets…Train operators will be expected to reduce their costs and this is one important option they will want to consider…it may not be possible or appropriate for ticket office opening hours to continue at current levels.”
It may well be inconveniently expensive for the train companies to have to employ staff to sell tickets to their passengers, but it is one of the best ways for many customers to ensure that they purchase the cheapest ticket, not least when we have a ticketing system so complex that it can be very confusing. Surely decisions should be made on the basis of what is least expensive for passengers, not what is least expensive for train companies.
We know that Ministers do not plan on listening because we have seen leaked e-mails from the Department for Transport showing that plans to close ticket offices are already well advanced. This is what one official said in an e-mail to the Department’s press office advising it on what it could say on ticket office closures:
“We can’t say that the Government has no plans to close ticket offices because we have an application from London Midland where the minister has already decided to approve some ticket office closures (it’s just not been announced yet…and there will be more of those in the future.”
When I first read that out last year during Transport questions, the Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes, said that the official must have been mistaken as he had not approved any ticket office closures. Yet weeks later it was announced that the Minister had indeed approved London Midland’s plans to close some ticket offices and reduce the opening hours of others, despite the company’s abysmal performance in recent months which has caused such misery for passengers. What is even more revealing in the leaked e-mail is that it shows how the Government intend to pass the blame for those closures on to the train companies. This is what the official told the press office:
“your way of slipping in there that the initiative comes from the TOCs”—
the train operating companies—
“not us is very neat.”
So that is the Government’s plan for fares and ticketing: ticket prices rising by as much as 9% every year; more expensive new super-peak tickets which mean that season ticket holders will not even be able to get on every train without paying up to 40% more than other passengers over the next five years; and new freedoms for train companies to close ticket offices, making it harder for passengers to get the best deals. What a contrast with the ideas to make fares and ticketing fairer and simpler that we have heard as a result of listening to passengers during our policy review process.
Those ideas include a clear definition of peak and off-peak, to prevent passengers from facing massive extra charges on the train because it was not clear when peak time ended, and to prevent train operators stretching their peak time to stretch their profits at the expense of passengers. Another is a legal right to the cheapest ticket, so that passengers are offered the cheapest deal available, with rights to refunds if they find that they were mis-sold a more expensive ticket.
Another idea is a more flexible way for passengers to change travel plans so that if, through no fault of their own, they just miss a train and have an advance ticket, they can take the next train without incurring a massive new fare on board. Another is a right to a discount for a rail replacement bus service, because if your train, Mr Deputy Speaker, becomes a bus, which usually results in a longer journey, it should be treated in the same way as a service that is delayed for any other reason. Finally, it is suggested that there should be a cap on annual increases in station car parking charges, because it is increasingly clear that some train companies are squeezing yet more money out of hard-pressed commuters by whacking up parking charges when we should be making it easier for people to leave their car at the station and commute, because by doing so they are helping to cut congestion and helping the environment.
Maria Eagle
No. Those are the changes to fares and ticketing that passengers want, not the Government’s approach, which seems to be more about what is in the best interests of the train companies, not commuters.
If the Government are out of touch with the impact of fare rises on commuters, Ministers are even more woefully out of touch with the consequences for bus fares and services of their funding decisions since the election. When they set out plans to cut 28% of funding from local transport and axe a fifth of the direct support for bus services, Ministers claimed, incredibly, that that could be done without an impact on fares. The Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes, told the House:
“When I spoke to the industry following the spending review announcement, it indicated that the cut was so minimal that it hoped that it could absorb it without fares having to rise, which is what we hope will happen.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 953.]
What incredible naivety.
For the subsequent two years, those who rely on local bus services have had to listen to the Minister, with his fingers in his ears, denying all knowledge of the consequences of the cuts. At Transport questions last April, he said of bus services that
“there have not been the cuts that the Opposition are so keen to talk up.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 485.]
At Transport questions in November, he again refused to accept the truth when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) warned him of the higher fares and reduced services in communities up and down the country.
We now have the truth, because the Government have had to publish the annual bus statistics for 2011-12. They clearly show an average increase in bus fares of 6.5% in England and an even higher average increase of 7.6% in non-metropolitan areas. Those are increases of more than double the rate of inflation on services that are relied on by some of the poorest in our communities.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend consider whether the impact of those increases will be felt by young people in particular, who have to pay high fares to get to college and to work and who are suffering a great burden because of the increases being visited on them by the Government?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is right. The Government’s own statistics also reveal the truth on lost services. Directly contradicting the Minister’s claims, they show that between 2010-11 and 2011-12, mileage on supported services dropped by 10% in non-metropolitan areas in England and by 7% in metropolitan areas.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s point about lost services is crucial to those who live in villages in my constituency, particularly older people who do not have another option for transport. They face higher transport costs because there is no bus service any more. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a consequence of what she is saying.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct in explaining the experience that his constituents are living through. These are not just statistics, but the loss of actual services. Research by the Campaign for Better Transport has found that 41% of local authorities have been forced to cut services that are socially necessary and the support that they give them. That is on top of the cuts from the previous year, when one in five local council-supported bus services were cut or cut back. A tenth of councils have had to cut more than £1 million from support for bus services.
The Government’s own watchdog, Passenger Focus, has warned that the reduction in those services will impact disproportionately on
“older people, less affluent households, those with health related issues, or households containing teenagers”.
I hope that Ministers will accept that they cannot remain in denial any longer about the impact of the cuts to bus services—cuts that could have been avoided in their entirety just by using the Department’s underspend from last year, which Ministers handed back to the Treasury. Ministers need to explain to parents why they are having to struggle with the extra costs of getting their teenagers to college. They should explain to pensioners why the Prime Minister’s election pledge to protect their bus pass did not extend to protecting their local bus services, leaving many with a bus pass but no bus on which to use it, thereby reducing their access to shops and vital services and increasing their isolation.
Gareth Johnson
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Clearly, bus services, train services and transport systems have always had to be paid for in some way or another. Does she feel that most of the burden should fall on the passenger or on the taxpayer?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman has missed out the profits of rail and bus companies. Perhaps those ought to be looked at as well. As he knows, all Governments have to strike a balance. This Government have to do so, as did the previous one, and that will no doubt be the case for the next one too.
Because bus services outside London were deregulated, local authorities have for far too long been unable to limit fare rises or properly plan the network of local bus services in the interests of passengers and economic growth in their area. That is why the last Labour Government changed the law to enable transport authorities to use quality contracts to move to a tendered model for bus services, thereby bringing accountability over fares.
Maria Eagle
No.
That model means that decisions on fare rises are made by politicians, just as we have always accepted should happen for rail fares and as has happened for bus services in London. However, the integrated transport authorities that are rightly going down that route are finding that they are up against the vested interests in the private bus companies. Stagecoach is the worst culprit and has threatened to close depots, sack drivers and take buses off the road overnight. Sir Brian Souter claimed that he would rather “take poison” than enter a quality contract. His managing director accused the elected accountable transport authority of
“operating in the same camp as Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.”
Have the Government stood by transport authorities that are trying to secure a better deal in the use of taxpayers’ money? No. On the contrary, the Government are using their reform of bus funding to stack the odds even further against transport authorities. They are caving in to pressure from the bus companies and proposing to exclude from better bus area funding authorities that seek greater control over fares through quality contracts. Yet again, the Government are on the side of the wrong people and are putting the interests of the bus companies before bus passengers. The Government should think again and work with councils, not against them. Ministers should say to the bus companies, “You operate successfully in a regulated system right across Europe and you can do so here.” Instead, Ministers are cutting funding, oblivious to the impact on rising fares and reduced services, and standing in the way of local authorities that are seeking reform to deliver more for less and keep down fares.
On rail and bus services, the cost of transport is rising by well above the rate of inflation. The Government should listen to passengers, and the House should support the motion. Let this be the last year when the train companies are allowed to turn the so-called cap on fare rises into an average. The Government should restore the strict cap on fares that was introduced by Labour and that they scrapped. They should also listen to passengers about ticket offices and look at the ideas that we have set out to make fares and ticketing fairer and simpler. The Government have so far shown themselves to be completely out of touch on the rising cost of transport and the pressure that it is causing for families who are already feeling the squeeze on household budgets. Today is an opportunity for Ministers to start listening, recognise the consequences of the misguided decisions that their predecessors have taken over the past two years on rail and bus services, and act. I invite the Secretary of State for Transport to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Secretary of State, I should say that there will be a time limit on contributions. It is difficult to say what the limit will be until the Secretary of State sits down, but I should not think that it will be much more than six minutes.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I start on a bipartisan note by joining the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in wishing her colleague the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), whom I see in his place, a speedy recovery and return to the Front Bench. We all wish him well and understand why he has taken the decision that he has in the short term.
I could not help but think that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and myself must have lived in different countries. From listening to her speech, it was almost as if there had been utopia until the general election, with everything fine and wonderful and the train companies bowing to the wishes of the Government and always doing what was right by consumers and the Government. Then I read a few Select Committee reports from the last Parliament to put me on the right track. I could not help but be struck by a report of the Transport Committee from 2006, when it had a Labour majority and a Labour Chairman. It stated:
“Both the Department for Transport and the train operating companies quoted growth and the fact that ‘the UK has the fastest-growing rail patronage in Europe’ as reasons not to be overly concerned about price levels. Indeed, the Government demonstrated breathtaking complacency”
about fares and ticketing. The hon. Lady should not imagine that the problem of fare rises is new. She said that there was no recession then, but we were about to go into one of the biggest recessions that this country has ever suffered. I will come to that a little later, but I am conscious of time—although you did not tell me to be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware of the fact that you said there will be a time limit on speeches. I will try to be a lot briefer than the shadow Secretary of State was in her 30-minute opening speech.
I am afraid that a lot of what the hon. Lady said was a mixture of the ill informed and the inaccurate. The motion does nothing to help passengers or investment, and it says all that we need to know about the Labour party. Let us be plain about some of the facts, which might help the Opposition. The motion calls on the Government to cap regulated fares at 1% above inflation. We have. It was the last Government who planned for 70% of costs to be met by fare payers in 2013 and 2014, which would mean fares rising this year not by 1% above inflation but by double that. The fare rises are lower than they would have been under Labour’s plans. That would have been an additional tax on hard-working commuters that we have not been prepared to impose.
I do agree with the shadow Secretary of State on some things. She has said that
“we should reduce the public subsidy to the rail industry”.—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 522.]
I agree. She has also said that if she were running the Department’s budget now,
“we would have to make difficult and painful decisions in respect of cutting the deficit”.
Indeed, and Labour did make some of those difficult decisions. She talked about ticket office opening hours, and it is a fact that in the last five years of the Labour Government, Ministers approved cuts in opening hours at approximately 300 stations. Now the Opposition seem to think that that is wholly wrong, but they were only too aware of the need for it when they were in government.
I agree with the hon. Lady, too, that it is right that we have a record level of investment in our railways at the moment, and that railway passengers have to contribute to that as well as the taxpayer. We have more trains and better services and we are delivering new lines. We are also delivering for passengers by capping the average increase in regulated fares at RPI plus 1% not just this year but last year and next.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I note that my right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers have a long-term aim of reducing the cost of railways to both passengers and taxpayers, and therefore ending the era of the above-inflation rail fare increase. Will he therefore reassure me that he will not look to the taxpayer and the fare-paying passenger to bear the £33 billion cost of his plans for the High Speed 2 railway?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to reaffirm to my right hon. Friend the Government’s commitment to adopt what was Lord Adonis’s plan for HS2, and I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend and I disagree on HS2. I believe that it is vital for future investment and opportunities for the whole country. I will say more about that in the House in a few weeks’ time.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend also mention the rise in transport costs for users of the Severn bridge and say whether there is any possibility of capping those increases when the bridge returns to public ownership in 2017-18?
Mr McLoughlin
If I am still Secretary of State in 2017, I will have been the longest serving Transport Secretary. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have enough problems on my plate without making commitments for 2017. I look forward, however, to a Conservative Government making that decision—that is as far as I will go towards meeting that commitment at the moment.
The fact that we have capped fares to RPI plus 1% will benefit more than a quarter of a million annual season ticket holders by around £45 a year, and some commuters will be more than £200 better off over the two years. The motion before the House is confused in another way. It attacks the flexibility that allows operators to increase some regulated fares by more than RPI plus 1% if they cut other fares by an equal amount—for example, on Virgin Trains the Rugby to Euston season ticket has increased by almost 1% less than inflation. Today, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood tried to claim that it was not the last Government who introduced that flexibility, or that such flexibility existed for more than one year. The changes to the agreement, which I can read to her, make it clear. The deed of amendment states:
“With effect from 00.00 on 1 January 2010 Schedule 5.5 of the Franchise Agreement will be amended as set out in the Appendix to the Deed…From 00.00 on 1 January 2011”.
Therefore, the agreement was amended for just one year.
Maria Eagle
Is the Secretary of State saying that Lord Adonis, whom he just praised, misled the Transport Committee when he said that he intended the agreement to go into the future and that it was a permanent change? Does he realise—he will find it out in 2014—that the year before an election, the limits of how far into the future one can go in the time of one’s successors are set by Whitehall and are different from those for the beginning of a Parliament?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not accusing the noble Lord of misleading anybody; I am informing the House of what he did as Secretary of State. He may have wished his changes to last longer, but they did not and were solely for that one year. Indeed, when the 5% flexibility was introduced in 2004 it led to some increases of 11% under the previous Labour Government in 2009 alone. That flexibility was suspended for one year—an election year.
However, that is not Labour policy now. How do we know? Well, let us look at Wales where this year under the Labour devolved Administration fares went up by RPI plus 1%, with flexibility of 5%.
Henry Smith
My right hon. Friend is right. Labour says it has changed its policy on fare flexibility, but in Wales, where it is in charge of the devolved Administration, it has agreed flexibility of up to 5% on train fares.
Mr McLoughlin
Indeed; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope no Welsh Labour MPs support the motion tabled by the shadow Secretary of State. If they do, not only will they back up my argument that we are having a synthetic debate introduced by an Opposition who have synthetic policies on transport costs, but they will not mean what they say. When Labour is in a position to change the rules, it does not do so. In Wales, it has accepted the flexibility it believes it needs to provide a proper service; the Labour Government in Wales have acted in exactly the same way as the UK Government.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr McLoughlin
I will, but unfortunately Birmingham is a few miles away from Wales.
Richard Burden
Indeed it is. The Secretary of State says that the debate is synthetic, but the anger of my constituents and many others at the performance of London Midland in the past year is not synthetic. He has recently dumped the deal with London Midland. The good news is that that provides some pre-concessions to passengers, but it is also said that he has not actioned a break clause in the contract. That could have happened at the end of this year, but it has been extended to 2015. It is also unclear what milestones and review mechanisms will be in place to hold London Midland to its word. Will he clarify whether his measures give London Midland more of a free rein or whether he will introduce a measure that forces it to do what it says it will do?
Mr McLoughlin
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has made a statement on that, in which he also outlined some of the requirements we expect of London Midland. He and I will be watching the performance of that franchise very carefully. It is important that we give passengers the service they rightly expect and demand. We have put in place a number of measures that will cost London Midland considerable money to put into operation, and I expect it to do so.
I am conscious of the time—time moves on when I am continually trying to help colleagues to understand where their policies have gone wrong in the past. We are looking at ways to improve our railway services. As I have said, the Labour party, which is in control in Wales, has kept exactly the same flexibility on rail fares that the UK Government have retained.
In 10 years, the Labour Government electrified only 10 miles of railways; this Government will electrify 850 miles, including the midland main line, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Whip, who is sitting on the Front Bench, has campaigned so hard.
Mr McLoughlin
I will give way only briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
Julie Hilling
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the amount of money the Labour Government had to put into the railway to rebuild it after 18 years of no investment under the previous Tory Administration?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Lady is a sadly missed member of the Transport Committee, and was there when I first appeared before it. She should be careful, however, because she was probably a member of the Committee during its inquiry on “Rail 2020”, which quite clearly shows that the worst year for subsidising the railways was 2000-01. I cannot remember what party was in government at that time, but it is true that investment went up afterwards—[Interruption.] She is looking for the page number. Page 9 simply and straightforwardly sets out the record.
Mr McLoughlin
I must press on. I am sorry I cannot give way to the hon. Lady. The facts I have pointed out are in the report. I will try to make progress and give other hon. Members the chance to contribute to the debate.
We are putting record investment into the railways. In the 19th century, our railway was a symbol of Britain’s innovation—including London’s underground, the first anywhere and 150 years old today. Now, the railway is experiencing an extraordinary renaissance. Last year, the number of passenger miles travelled was almost 50% higher than it was in 2000. More people are travelling by rail today than at any time since the 1920s, and rail freight has grown by more than 60% since privatisation. We have soaring demand, but limited space. Regular passengers on busy lines know only too well what that can mean—overcrowded carriages and uncomfortable journeys. That is not good enough and we are going to sort it out.
In July, we announced £16 billion of funding for the network between 2014 and 2019. Inter-city travellers will benefit from the completion of the northern hub in Manchester, a £240 million investment on the east coast main line and a further £300 million for high-value, small-scale schemes in other parts of the country. We approved a £4.5 billion contract to build a new generation of inter-city trains in County Durham, creating some 900 jobs, and we are procuring thousands of new carriages for Crossrail and Thameslink. We are also getting cracking with HS2, the biggest new transport scheme since the building of the motorways. Meeting demand, however, is only part of the problem.
While the previous Government blew the budget, the railway was allowed to grow wasteful—up to 40% more expensive to run than those of our European competitors. We have therefore had to take a hard look at the industry and have a rail reform programme to tackle the £3.5 billion annual efficiency gap identified by the McNulty report in his rail value-for-money study. Already, major savings are being found. Ultimately, this focus on efficiency will help us to deliver our goal and put an end to above-inflation fare increases at the earliest opportunity. A railway that is efficient and modern is a railway that is affordable to use.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State whether, in his drive for efficiency and savings, he can give assurances to the steel industry that it will not be penalised by rail freight charges?
Mr McLoughlin
I will look at the hon. Lady’s point, but I hope she will make representations to the Welsh Assembly following the motion that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood has tabled. Perhaps the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) will consider not voting for the motion in light of it being in direct competition to what the Welsh Assembly, which I understand is Labour controlled, is doing.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I am conscious that the Secretary of State has not yet referred to bus services. My constituents rely entirely on bus services, as they do not have the luxury of a rail link. Does he agree that it is entirely wrong for operators such as Stagecoach to scaremonger about the introduction of quality contracts in Tyne and Wear and to threaten to sack staff and pull out of the region? Should the Government not back up integrated transport authorities, such as mine, which are making decisions that are in the best interests of local people?
Mr McLoughlin
I am coming on to say something about bus companies, but I will not comment on individual contracts that are being negotiated, as it would be wholly wrong of me to do so.
I want passengers to get the best deal from a ticket system that is easy to understand, and that is why we have set up the fare and ticketing review. This is not about higher fares; it is about simpler fares. It is not about catching out passengers who have to travel when trains are busiest, but getting good deals for people when there are seats to spare. Taxpayers, whether they use trains or not, all contribute to the cost of running the railway. I know that when people face big bills and tough times they really feel the pressure of higher fares. That is why we are looking at ideas such as smart ticketing and more flexible season tickets, so that they only have to pay when they actually need to travel. The way we work is changing and it is right that tickets change too.
This Government are on the side of passengers, whether they use trains or buses. That is why we have protected free bus travel for pensioners and are putting in place a level playing field so that operators can compete to bring fares down. The basic truth, however, is that the cost of bus travel has risen, including during the decade to 2010 under the Labour Government, and that is mainly due to higher operator costs, such as fuel.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr McLoughlin
I am sorry, but I must make some progress.
From the first day of the coalition Government, our priority has been to tackle the deficit that we inherited, to rebalance our economy, to get people back to work and to boost growth. Transport plays a key part in that process. This Government have capped fare rises. We are getting the investment in, tackling overcrowding, increasing seats and services, and delivering High Speed 2. It is the right deal for passengers and the right deal for Britain’s future.
Mr Speaker
There is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, and it applies with immediate effect.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, which is extremely timely, given the news in today’s newspapers that once again the north-east is to lose out on vital rail infrastructure investment. I want to draw some important links between fares paid, the turnover of rail operating companies, the profits they make and levels of investment.
This morning, The Journal in Newcastle announced that Network Rail’s £37 billion five-year improvement programme looked set to snub a wish list of north-east track upgrades. The Secretary of State just trumpeted that 850 miles of line were to be electrified—well, not in the north-east of England, I am afraid. He also mentioned that £240 million was to be invested in the east coast main line. On the basis of current profits and the amount of money going back to the Department for Transport from the east coast main line, that is about one and a quarter years’ operating profit—so not much to be thankful for there. Rail passenger groups have warned that, although some east coast main line work will speed up connections, almost none of Network Rail’s refurbishment money will go to north-east England. Incidentally, the east coast main line is operated by Directly Operated Railways, which is owned, in turn, by the Secretary of State and the Department, so he has significant influence over the company—or certainly should have.
Lines in the region calling out for electrification, new passenger services or full-scale reopening have had their case turned down, as money has gone instead to improving services via Manchester and Leeds, as well as improving links to London. Of the £37.5 billion budget, only a pittance is earmarked for track enhancements in the north-east—mainly for the easing of the so-called pinch points between Northallerton and Ferryhill. From a north-east perspective, projects would help to boost mobility and connectivity in our region and enhance our prospects for economic growth.
This snubbing, yet again, of the north-east is particularly galling given the range of fare deals being offered to north-east customers, compared with our Scottish counterparts, by the east coast main line. We sometimes have to pay £100 more for a journey that is an hour and a half and a 100 miles less. I have no quarrel with my Scottish colleagues and their constituents getting good deals from east coast main line, but on behalf of my constituents, I have a duty to demand the same kind of deals and discounts for the travelling public in the north-east as those from which colleagues north of the border benefit.
The east coast main line is working at a significant profit and contributing those profits to the national pot.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I had a look at the fares on the internet just before we came into the Chamber. A return fare from Newcastle to King’s Cross was £301. With the minimum wage at £6.19, that means that people have to pay 48.62 hours of work at the minimum wage for one journey from Newcastle to London return. Is that fair?
Ian Mearns
There is an awful lot about current fare structures that is desperately unfair, particularly for people on low wages and those trying to get jobs, and particularly in a region such as the north-east, where many have to travel to get work.
As the independent report stated in September, a railway company that was temporarily renationalised by the Government three years ago reported increased profits and an improvement in passenger satisfaction. DOR, which took over the running of the east coast line from National Express, said that its operating profit increased by 7% in the year to March to £7.1 million. Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8 million—an increase of £20 million—leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department of £195.7 million. That was an increase of £13 million. Putting that against the £240 million proposed investment in the east coast main line makes the amount look extremely modest indeed.
I have a great deal of respect for east coast main line as a franchise. I sympathise with its staff, who often work in difficult circumstances, dealing with the failures of creaking infrastructure and worn out rolling stock and equipment, yet an awful lot of what the travelling public have to put up with on the east coast main line could be avoided through some relatively modest investment, which would be entirely affordable given its profits.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentions the east coast main line staff, who do indeed provide a good service to passengers. I am sure that he, like me, frequently comes across people who are confused about whether they have the right ticket for a journey—a train might be late or they might get on the wrong train. The poor staff then have to deal with the problems that that creates. Is that not an example of the kind of complication that drives away passengers and often makes them go for higher fares rather than cheaper ones?
Ian Mearns
Indeed, and one criticism I would make of the last Government is that they did not sort out the complicated franchising system, which has left us with a complicated rail ownership programme across the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer proudly announced investment in infrastructure as a means to unlock growth. However, analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows a biased picture. The think-tank examined the data, detailing the projects to be brought forward as part of the national infrastructure pipeline. Of the projects that were identified as benefiting a particular region and where public funding was involved, it found that London and the south-east accounted for 84% of planned spending, compared with 6% in the north. That equates to some £2,700 a head for each Londoner, which is more than the total for all the other regions combined, which includes £201 a head for Yorkshire and Humberside, £134 a head for the north-west and just a fiver for the north-east of England. My constituents do not believe those figures, but they are absolutely right. Why, if we get a meagre £5 of investment per head, should we pay extortionate rises in rail fares, which have risen nearly three times faster than wages since the recession? In fact, between 2008 and 2012, average rail fares increased by 26.6%, with wages rising by just 9.6% over the same period. Recent research by the think-tank Transport for Quality of Life has shown that UK rail fares are the most expensive in Europe and that rail privatisation is costing taxpayers £1.2 billion a year, with train operating companies making large profits on the back of public subsidies.
Speaking of profits, I was appalled to learn recently of a dispute over pay involving east coast main line and a subsidiary company called ISS—International Service System—which centred on its cleaning staff. Cleaners were being paid £6.08 an hour—a figure that is below the national minimum wage and is, I believe, illegal. On top of that, they got no pension scheme, no enhancements for unsocial hours, bank holidays or weekends, no sick pay above the statutory minimum and no travel allowances. The east coast franchise, which likes to promote itself as a first-class service, was treating employees of its contract cleaning company in a third-class way. ISS is a huge multinational company, with more than 500,000 employees worldwide, 43,000 of whom work in the United Kingdom. It is disgusting that it was able to do that to its hard-working employees. Indeed, following on from yesterday’s debate, this has a knock-on effect, as the Government have to fork out in-work benefits to many of these people to subsidise the industry.
Pressure must be put on Network Rail by the Government to ensure that north-east services get a fair allocation of resources. Connectivity, particularly by rail, is essential to the economic prospects of regions such as the north-east. Despite their stated commitment to reduce the deficit, the Government still find themselves, month after month, deepening the crisis yet further. When will they recognise the essential link between investment in growth, particularly in regions such as the north-east, and their prime aim of deficit reduction? The two are absolutely connected.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The motion before us is very disappointing. It fails to recognise why there are costs in our transport system or what the Government are already doing about them.
I want to focus on the rail network, because it is the transport area undergoing the most significant change, as we are in the biggest period of rail investment since the Victorian era. We all know that there are inefficiencies in our rail system. The McNulty review, which was commissioned by the previous Government, reported inefficiencies of between £2.5 billion and £3.5 billion in the system, and found that our railways were up to 40% less efficient than the best of our European counterparts. Those are inconvenient facts that the motion ignores. It also ignores the success of the industry. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, there are as many passengers on our rail network now as there were in the 1920s, yet the network is significantly smaller than it was then. That is one of the causes of overcrowding. It also shows, however, that passengers are choosing to use rail.
I am going to talk about an area in which the Government have introduced a radical change of policy that will cut costs for passengers and improve the service they receive. That policy is rail electrification. Let me remind the House of how the UK performs in this area. We have electrified 34% of our network. In 2010, the UK was 20th out of 29 European countries in the league table of electrification. We are ahead of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Latvia, Estonia, Greece and Lithuania. Wales and Albania were the only two countries without a single mile of electrified railway.
Why does this matter? It matters because electrified railways are cheaper to run. Electric trains are cheaper to buy. They weigh less, and so put less wear and tear on the network, which in turn costs less to maintain. They require less engine space, and so can accommodate more passengers, which contributes to the capacity issue. They can accelerate and decelerate more quickly than diesel trains. This means that passengers can enjoy faster journey times or that there can be more stops for the same journey time, or that there can be a combination of the two. They are also, of course, more environmentally friendly. Rail electrification is part of the long-term solution in taking cost out of running our railways.
I mentioned earlier that this area has seen a radical change of policy direction. Labour managed just 10 miles of rail electrification in 13 years. That is not even a snail’s pace. In contrast, this Government have announced 850 miles, and we are only halfway through this Parliament. That represents a huge change of scale and ambition, tackling cost and capacity for the longer term.
Mrs Gillan
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have also led the way by announcing the electrification of the railway line from London all the way down to Swansea and, more importantly, the electrification of the valleys lines in south Wales, which will mean a great deal to a large number of people? I am pleased to say that those measures are supported by Members on both sides of the House, and I look forward to the projects being completed in due course.
Andrew Jones
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is not just an abstract policy; we are seeing real change on the ground, and there is good news right across the country. As she says, the Great Western main line is being electrified between London and Swansea, along with the valleys lines and the vale of Glamorgan line, which will bring electrification to Wales for the first time. The midland main line is being electrified between London and Sheffield, and that will obviously include Loughborough. A matter of great importance to my constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough will be the electrification of the TransPennine Express services between Leeds and Manchester. That is just part of the massive rail investment that we are seeing in the north. There are many other projects, and I would like to highlight the complete funding of the northern hub, which will vastly increase capacity between our great northern cities.
Those projects involve major long-term funding decisions. Sometimes, we have been reluctant to take such decisions, but not under this Government. The ministerial team deserves praise for that. However, I cannot resist taking this opportunity to highlight a marvellous electrification opportunity. This is a bit of a local advert, and I thank the Ministers for listening. I am talking about the Leeds-Harrogate-York line. The line has up to 3 million passengers a year, its usage is growing rapidly and it serves an area of high economic activity. The area also has a significant visitor economy. The Harrogate international conference centre attracts more than 300,000 visitors a year, and 500,000 visitors attend the Great Yorkshire show each year. The area is so inadequately served by its rail facilities, however, that less than 20% of its visitors arrive by rail.
Electrification of the line is part of the solution. There is enormous support for the electrification of our line—from all the councils along the route, from the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and, of course, from all the local chambers of trade and commerce. May I therefore ask the Minister, perhaps a little cheekily, to look at what can be done for the Leeds-Harrogate-York line and to meet me and colleagues to discuss it?
The questions we should be asking today about transport costs are not those in the motion before us. We should be looking at the underlying reasons why we have cost in the system. I think the Opposition know that, which is why they commissioned the McNulty report in the first place. Overall, I completely agree with the desire to cut the cost of travel in the UK, but I will not support the motion because it fails to take so many important issues into account.
I have been talking about rail solutions, but the Government have been taking action in other areas, as well. We should look at the different approach to fuel duty. The last Government increased fuel duty 12 times, and left office with six further rises planned. This Government have stopped them, and as a result motorists are seeing fuel duty 13p a litre lower.
I welcome the Opposition’s interest in delivering value for taxpayers and passengers, but it is a late conversion. As identified in the McNulty report, they left our rail network inefficient. Under the last Government, rail subsidy went up by 337% at a time when passengers saw real-terms fare rises. Bus subsidies went up by 127%, despite real-terms fare increases again. It is only by tackling the underlying drivers of cost that better value will be delivered for taxpayers. This motion does not even consider that, which is why I will not support it.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Transport is a vital issue. It is essential for people to get to work and to get to social amenities. That is why it is so important that we debate not just the provision of transport itself, but the cost—because transport has to be affordable if it is to be put to best use. I shall confine my comments to the rail service, and I shall refer to some of the findings of the Transport Committee’s report on rail, which was recently published. There will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate the Select Committee’s report on bus services, and I hope there will be the same number of Members in Westminster Hall tomorrow afternoon as there are in this Chamber today.
It is important to note that rail is, in fact, increasingly popular. The number of people travelling by rail has doubled in recent years, while the amount of freight carriage has increased by about 40%. There is rising concern, however, about fare levels. I assume that that explains why the Government’s proposal to increase regulated fares by an average of RPI plus 3% was reduced to RPI plus 1%—because of the public outcry and concern about increased fares. It is also true that the Government are implementing a policy—indeed, they inherited it—whereby passengers were expected to pay an increasingly higher percentage of the cost of rail than the taxpayer. Important issues remain about how this policy is applied, about the cost of running the railways, about how efficiencies can be achieved and about how costs and the allocation of subsidies can be assessed.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady made an important point in saying that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government and Labour decided to shift to some degree the cost of rail transport from the taxpayer to the passenger. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) did not comment on the issue from the Front Bench, so I was wondering what level of subsidy and what proportion of the cost should be borne by the passenger?
Mrs Ellman
At the moment, the overall distribution is about 60% for the passenger and 40% for the taxpayer. In the breakdown of how the funds are allocated on different types of services, however, there are very stark differences. It is in respect of the allocation of the cost and the resultant proportions of contributions made by taxpayers and passengers where further major questions need to be asked. That is why the Select Committee report highlighted the need for more transparency about the cost of different types of services and where the subsidy goes.
The Committee’s main conclusion was that the Government should rule out demand management that would lead to even higher fares at peak times. It made the important point that many people have to travel at peak times in order to get to work.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We must all acknowledge that at peak times the demand placed on the rail network can far outstrip supply. How does the hon. Lady think demand can be prevented from exceeding supply? Does she not agree that more should be done to encourage investment in local areas, outside the major cities, in order to remove the need for most of us to commute?
Mrs Ellman
People often travel at peak times because those are the times when they have to get to work. They have no choice. However, there are other ways of addressing the question of demand, and I shall say something about them later.
The report also talks of the importance of achieving efficiencies, although we think that the aim of making efficiency savings of £3.5 billion by 2018, as McNulty recommends, is a challenging one. The bringing together of different parts of the rail industry in the Rail Development Group, and through other means, is welcome, but it is important for the industry then to work in the interests of passengers and the taxpayer, not just in its own interests. It is also important for it not to cut corners and put safety at risk in order to achieve efficiencies. We have high safety standards which should not be jeopardised, and strong regulation is particularly important for that reason. The regulator needs to be able to act firmly and decisively.
Members have mentioned other means of achieving efficiencies and reducing fares, or at least reducing the rate of increase in fares. We need to think about smart ticketing and innovation, and about introducing more flexibility in the way in which fares policy is drawn up and implemented, which has been sadly lacking. There should also be more transparency in the use of public funds. It is extremely important for the rail service to receive a public subsidy, because it is a public service, but it is equally important for the £4 billion public subsidy going into the system this year to be dealt with in a way that people understand, so that they can assess whether it is being used effectively. Not all the information that we have at present enables them to do that.
Mrs Ellman
I am sorry, but my time is very limited.
Some information has been published about the subsidy for the London North Western route, which, we are told, amounted to £1.2 billion in 2010-11. That is a significant proportion of the £4 billion that is going into the overall system. The area covers wide expanses, including the west coast main line run by Virgin and Cumbrian rail services run by Northern Rail. We have been given an overall figure—a very major figure—but we do not know how the subsidy is allocated between different services, or indeed between different parts of the country. That is just one example of the need for more transparency so that we can assess whether subsidies are effective.
I welcome Network Rail’s recent announcement that more than £35 billion will be invested in the next control period, 2014-19. However, the Committee will look at the figures in detail and consider what they actually mean, and the rail regulator will look at them as well before anything is finally approved. It should be noted that although the announcement of more much-needed investment in the rail system has been welcomed, passengers have expressed the fear that they will have to pay for it through even higher fares, which renders the need to look again at a policy on regulated fares even more urgent. The Committee has asked Ministers to do that.
In due course there will be an opportunity to discuss the Committee’s complete findings, and we will do more work on rail franchising and rolling stock acquisitions, another important area in respect of savings. I hope my comments this afternoon have helped to inform the debate. Rail is increasingly popular and a good service is currently offered, but there is increasing concern about fare levels, and we must address that.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
After many years of above-inflation rail fare increases, rail fares are now simply too high, so I am pleased that as a result of pressure from the Liberal Democrats and others, the coalition Government’s previous plan of introducing an increase of the retail prices index plus 3%—which would have made a bad situation even worse—has been dropped and that that increase has been reduced to RPI plus 1%, which means fares will be lower than they would have been under the previous Labour Government.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr MacNeil
RPI plus 1% was an SNP Government policy, so this is a case of stolen clothes. Unfortunately, ferry fares have risen for haulage, but there was no effort at all to reduce ferry fares under the Edinburgh Liberal-Labour Administration. Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for that?
Mr Reid
I am certainly not going to apologise after the SNP has just increased ferry fares by 10%. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that the SNP Government in Scotland copied the Government here, so the rail fare increase in Scotland is also RPI plus 1%.
Liberal Democrats believe it is important to end the era of above-inflation rail price increases as soon as possible. However, that important aim has to be balanced with the need to raise cash for the investment that our railways so badly need. Our railways have suffered from decades of chronic under-investment, leading to a system which was increasingly inefficient, overcrowded and highly expensive to run. I am therefore pleased that the coalition Government have committed to invest about £16 billion in our railways up to 2019. That will support over £9 billion-worth of improvements, which will help to provide more services and greater capacity, particularly for commuters to our nation’s biggest cities.
The coalition Government are currently overseeing the biggest investment in our railway infrastructure since the Victorian era, and at the same time we are working hard to reform our railways and reduce unnecessary costs. The coalition plans for further rail electrification will also ultimately result in over 800 miles of track being electrified. Many speakers have contrasted that with the record of the previous Government. Our future plans include the important High Speed 2 project. It will create a direct high-speed link between London and Birmingham, which will eventually extend to Manchester and Leeds, and, I hope, Edinburgh and Glasgow as well. That will help enhance rail connections throughout the country and reduce journey times, and boost future opportunities for jobs and growth.
I will not support the Opposition motion, as it has fallen into the typical Opposition party trap of calling for fare cuts while saying nothing about where the money will come from for the investment our railway system so badly needs. Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are working together in government to put our railways on a sustainable footing, and we hope it will soon be possible to keep fare increases below inflation.
Although the country needs to reduce the deficit, I am pleased that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has recently been able to announce more than £120 million of funding for buses, including £31 million for low-carbon buses. I also welcome his launch last year of the Government’s policy document, “Green Light for Better Buses”. It sets out a series of reforms that will attract more people on to the buses, ensure better value for the taxpayer and give local authorities more influence over their bus networks. Ultimately, it is for local authorities working in partnership with their communities to identify the right transport solutions for their areas.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that outside London there has been a continuing decline in the level of bus patronage and that the real answer to that is, as the shadow Secretary of State said, to have quality contracts or to re-regulate the buses? What are his Government going to do about that?
Mr Reid
The important thing is that the Government work together with local authorities and that power is devolved to them to find the correct solution; this Government are providing money and are working with local authorities.
Cycling has another important transport role to play, and I was pleased with the announcement in the autumn statement of a further £42 million investment in the sustainable transport fund for cycling infrastructure, including cycling safety. No matter how much effort is put into providing public transport and encouraging people to use it, in rural areas, particularly sparsely populated ones such as mine, the car will always be part of the transport solution. So I am pleased that the Government abandoned Labour’s fuel duty escalator and have reduced fuel duty by 1p a litre on the mainland and by 6p a litre on the islands. I hope that the Government will soon get the EU approval required to extend this scheme to remote parts of the mainland.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that the 5p reduction is perhaps a bit small and that, given the price of fuel, we should be striving to make that derogation from the European Union somewhat greater?
Mr Reid
I would certainly support any efforts to increase that discount. Such a move would need EU agreement, but I would certainly be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to try to obtain it. It is important to point out that from April fuel duty in his constituency will be almost 20p a litre less than it would have been had the previous Government’s policies continued.
I hope the Government will introduce road pricing on motorways and major trunk roads, using that income to reduce fuel duty. Such a system would rightly tax people more for using their car on journeys where there is a public transport alternative. This coalition Government are tackling the problems of lack of investment in our public transport system, in contrast to the Labour motion, which offers no solutions whatsoever. I certainly will not be supporting the Labour motion, and I am sure it will be overwhelmingly defeated.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The starting point for this debate has to be the fact that Great Britain has some of the highest rail fares in Europe. I recognise, of course, that to pay for investment in the rail network the passenger—the fare box—will have to make an important contribution to the funds required. However, the passenger should not be asked to pay an unfair burden, and one way in which we can ensure that passengers are not forced to pay more than they need to is by ensuring that the revenue earned from the network is actually used for the benefit of the network—for the benefit of passengers—and is not siphoned off out of the system.
The evidence from the decades of the privatisation regime, instituted by a previous Conservative Government, is overwhelmingly clear. That approach has meant that billions of pounds has passed out of the system, away from passengers and away from possible benefits of infrastructure investment. Instead, the benefits have been in the form of big profits for many of the companies involved, not just train operating companies but those with ancillary roles in the system, including some of the providers of rolling stock, to mention just one example. This has not just been about money flowing out through large profits; it has also been about operating inefficiencies being brought into the system. Again, those have been to the detriment of passengers and, in their own way, have led to fare increases.
Mr Andrew Turner
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why such inefficient companies win these contracts?
Mark Lazarowicz
Let us leave aside the fact that there are not many operators in the field to bid. I am not saying that an individual operator is necessarily inefficient, but that the system as a whole leads to inefficiencies as well as to profits being paid out to private companies when they could be invested in the system.
I said that not all companies are inefficient. One example that showed the difficulties and negative effects of privatisation at their highest was the disaster of Railtrack, which was linked not just to private ownership and that company’s motivation in its operations but to the fragmentation of the operators and Railtrack’s distance from the train operating companies. That example also shows how some of the damage caused by privatisation began to be turned around. It is not a perfect organisation, but the publicly owned Network Rail has managed to repair some of the damage caused by fragmentation of the system and we have seen a safer railway network and better value for the taxpayer, for passengers and for other users of the rail network in the costs of maintaining the system.
Jim Shannon
One of the greatest burdens for people in employment is that 30% of their wages can go on travel. People are travelling further, too, to get jobs and employment. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that consideration has been given to those people who regularly use public transport, be it bus or rail, to get to work?
Mark Lazarowicz
Absolutely. That is an example of how increased rail fares damage people daily and effectively worsen their standard of living.
The most recent example of the damage caused by the privatised regime on the railways has been the fiasco of the west coast main line franchise. That fiasco is likely to land the Department for Transport—and therefore the taxpayer—with a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds, which could have been spent on improvements to routes, stations and rolling stock. In contrast, we have the experience of the east coast main line, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) referred earlier. Bringing the franchise into the public sector has been good business for the taxpayer and the directly operated company has brought money back into the public sector. In the last year, it has brought a premium of almost £200 million into the Department, which has gone back into the public sector rather than being siphoned off into a privately owned company.
The problem is that there is an inherent difficulty in the tendering system that operates on the railways under the privatisation scheme introduced by a previous Conservative Government. In order to bring about long-term investment and security, a Government will want to see long-term tenders, but the longer the tender the less reliable any prediction of future traffic and income can be. That leads to a risk of the tender becoming either a loss-maker, with the operator seeking to hand it back to the Government and to make them pick up the tab, or one in which excessive profits are reaped by the private operator. The system itself is at the heart of the problems with the railways and of the fact that money that could be used to benefit our passengers has unnecessarily flowed out of the rail system.
I want to concentrate on the east coast main line, which is of particular relevance to my constituency and to communities further south along the line. I urge the Government to drop the ideology and to choose the option that works and that will keep prices down for the traveller. They should keep the east coast line, which is successfully operated by Directly Operated Railways, in the public sector. I would rather that that was done on a permanent basis, but if the Government, for ideological reasons, are not prepared to do that, they should at least give the operators a long-term contract rather than leaving a sword of Damocles hanging over the company, the staff who work for it and the passengers and communities that rely on it.
The Government could also take the opportunity to allow Directly Operated Railways’ east coast line to be a genuine public sector comparator for the rest of the network. If the Government will insist on reprivatisation for the west coast main line, they should at least ensure that a public sector bid can be put on the table as a comparator against which we can judge which provides best value for money for the taxpayer and the best services for the passenger. That is the way forward. Let us start putting passengers first and make sure that they get the benefit of investment rather than the companies, which have taken too much out of the railways for too long since privatisation was introduced by a previous Conservative Government.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. This is an important issue; there is a serious debate to be had about how we finance investment in the rail industry in future and about the cost of transport today. Like hon. Friends who have spoken, I will have no problem in voting against the Opposition motion; with depressing predictability, it is rather opportunistic, denies their record and contains few concrete proposals for the future. I asked the House of Commons Library for figures on how much rail fares increased between 1997 and 2010. The answer was 56% for local and regional operators and 98% for long-distance trains. Rail fare increases did not begin in May 2010.
My first main point is that although the debate on rail fare increases is important, the reporting is not always helpful or accurate; the headline turn-up-and-go “Anytime” rail fares are often cited and from that it is extrapolated that Britain has the most expensive rail system in Europe. However, those tickets account for less than 20% of ticket sales. When we look at the whole series of available fares, the position is not as straightforward.
In preparing for this debate, I looked at the Virgin Trains website for a hypothetical journey from Manchester to London. Yes, if I wanted to travel in peak time, turn up and go, a single would cost £154—a large sum. However, a wide selection of other fares for the same journey, as low as £12.50, was available on a wide range of trains. The point is that we have to look at the whole mix of fares, not just the headline ones.
We do not have the same debate in the airline industry. The difference between the cheapest and most expensive air flights on the same route, say to New York, is enormous—from a couple of hundred pounds to £1,500 if someone wanted to turn up and go.
Mark Lazarowicz
I am sure that it is possible to get a £12.50 fare from Manchester on Virgin Trains on some occasions. However, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that £12.50 will be valid to London Euston, but if he wants to go to Brighton, Dover or the south-west of England with a different operator, he will not be able to get a through ticket at that rate? He will have to get two separate tickets, which might cost more than a single through ticket, because he will not be able to get a cheap through ticket.
Iain Stewart
I accept that there is an unnecessary complexity in the rail ticketing system. The Transport Committee has looked at that issue and will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not go too far down that path, as time is limited, but he has made a valid point.
The comparison with Europe is interesting. A very good website called “The Man in Seat Sixty-One” does an independent comparison of European rail fares. Yes, when you look at the “walk up and go any time” fares, the UK is substantially more expensive, but on other tickets, including buying the day before, Britain is either on a par with France, Germany or Italy or very often considerably cheaper.
I mention that because when we talk about rail fares, we need to differentiate between passengers compelled to travel at a particular time of day and the vast majority who have some flexibility over when they travel. The Opposition are right to highlight in the motion the issue of super-peak tickets, but they miss an important point. I completely accept that some passengers will not be able to change their time of travel, but others can. A super-peak ticket should not be designed to increase prices but to give rail operators the flexibility to discount other peak-time travel and encourage passengers to travel slightly later or earlier if possible.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend and namesake. Is it too utopian to hope that one day in future, rail fares, whatever they are charged at, will go up only by the rate of inflation, and that when we need to renovate our railways the Government will deal with that?
Iain Stewart
I am not sure whether it is utopian. The increased cost of investing in our railways has to be met by a mix of passenger contributions and taxpayer contributions. At the moment, the balance is about right. The cost of travel by any means is going up, and that takes into account the extra costs of energy. Similar debates are happening in Switzerland, Germany and other countries about how they cope with paying for the extra investment in the rail industry.
I return to my point about whether we can incentivise passengers to travel outwith the super-peak period. That is a line of questioning that I followed during the Transport Committee’s investigation when those in the rail industry were asked about what percentage of the daily commuter market could move their journeys as opposed to having to travel at the times they do. They were very reluctant to give a figure on that, so it is an area of uncertainty, but my own view is that with improvements in technology and more flexible working patterns, that share of the market will grow. In the last job I had before I was elected here, I had some flexibility because I could plug into the company’s database system and do a fair chunk of my work from home before having to travel in for meetings. If more and more employers give that flexibility to staff, as is entirely possible, it is perfectly feasible that rail operators will have an incentive to discount tickets—the shoulder, as it were—instead of putting up the super-peak fare, which I accept would be very unwelcome.
Time prohibits me from going into some of the other issues in depth. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, I hope that we have a further opportunity to explore the issues raised in the Select Committee report. There is a need to get the costs of running our railways down, as has been highlighted in McNulty and many other studies. I am encouraged by some of the innovations that are happening. I think particularly of the alliance between Network Rail and South West Trains. It is too early to give a full evaluation of that, but it is already showing signs of making it more efficient and cost-effective to maintain and improve the railway. There is the possibility of increasing revenue from retail space at stations. These factors will all feed into generating revenue for the railways and maintaining the pressure on keeping fare increases down.
I look forward to the Government’s conclusions from its consultation on ticketing. There is a real opportunity to drive down the cost of rail tickets in this country. However, we must look at the whole picture and recognise that we are pretty competitive compared with a lot of European countries. There will be pressures in future—that is a problem with the success of the railways to date—but the picture is not all bleak, and I very much welcome the steps that the Government are taking to improve the situation further.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has claimed that rail passengers are getting a premium service and that rail fares are not nearly as expensive as is being presented. I wonder who he is trying to kid. My constituents who are crammed like sardines into nearly 30-year-old trains do not believe that they are getting a premium service, and even McNulty acknowledged that fares overall are high relative to other countries.
Research by Passenger Focus has shown that fares in Britain are the highest in Europe, more than four times higher than the cheapest country for medium-distance journeys and nearly twice as high as the next most expensive. Granted, if someone can purchase their ticket far in advance and specify which train they want, and advance-purchase tickets are available for that service, they may be able to find a fare that is cheaper or comparable with those of our European colleagues, but for most people travelling for business that option is rarely available. Of course, if things happen and they are unable to get on a specific train at a specific time, they cannot transfer their ticket to another train, so the only way they can get the best price is to book in advance and accept zero flexibility and no refunds, which is something that the vast majority of us are unable to do.
Witnesses to the Transport Committee suggested that the way to solve overcrowding on trains was to price most people off peak times. Indeed, the Government appear to be considering super-peak tickets that would be even more expensive than peak tickets. When the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), gave evidence to the Committee, he answered a question of mine by saying that the railways are already a rich man’s toy. This Government seem to want to save some services for the super rich and price ordinary people off trains altogether. As Passenger Focus says, people should be incentivised to avoid travelling in the high peak, but not penalised even more when they cannot avoid it.
Our highly complicated fares system does not help train passengers to find the cheapest means of travel. The proposal to close ticket offices just adds to the difficulty, particularly for those who are unable to book tickets via the internet. It now costs more than £300 for my constituents to travel to London during the peak. They could get a holiday in the sun for a week, with spending money to spare, for the cost of getting to our capital city. Rail prices for long-distance travel have become obscene and mean that we are putting cars back on to roads. That surely cannot be right.
The vast majority of public transport journeys are made on buses. Since 2005, bus fares in metropolitan areas have increased by an average of twice the rate of inflation. Deregulation has produced a system where operators have been given a licence to print money at no risk to themselves. If an operator deems a service to be unprofitable, it can simply stop it and remove it from residents, unless the local authority steps in to save it. At a time when local authority budgets are being cut to the core, there is no money to support those services, and we know that services are being cut, leaving people unable to get to work and the elderly and people of limited means stranded in their homes.
Deregulation of the plethora of bus operators has also made it incredibly difficult to introduce any sort of travel card. London has had Oyster cards for nine years, but my constituents are still waiting. Although Transport for Greater Manchester is working hard to get our version of Oyster, it is finding it extremely difficult because of the various vested interests.
I spoke yesterday about my constituent Leah, who is affected by the cuts to tax credits and other benefits. Leah works 16 hours a week to earn £101, but she has to pay £18 a week for her bus fares. If she lived in London, she would pay £11.20.
The increases in train and bus fares are hitting ordinary people very hard. Wages have not kept pace with inflation and we know that people are already having to choose between heating and eating. Public transport costs are forcing many who can to travel to work in their cars and those who cannot to give up their jobs. The Government need to help local authorities to introduce quality contracts and Oyster-like travel cards and to keep bus fares down.
It seems that running our buses or trains is a licence to print money. Even though the majority of rail franchises receive large subsidies, they still take operating profits out of the industry. It is very much a case of something for nothing, which is why it was so disappointing that, after the debacle of the west coast franchise, the Government, apparently on ideological grounds, would not even consider directly operating the railway, as is the case with the east coast franchise, and putting money back into the Treasury.
Finally, I want to challenge the notion that the previous Labour Government did nothing on rail. We inherited a railway that had been starved of investment for 18 years and we needed to do some fundamental repairs, including rebuilding the west coast main line, which was already electrified. In 2006-7, the Labour Government spent twice as much as the current Government are spending, and in each year since 2003 more money was spent on the railways under the Labour Government than this Government are spending this year.
Let us agree that public transport is also a public service. It needs subsidy and, more importantly, it needs to be affordable for all, so that it is not just a rich man’s toy.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The cost of rail and bus travel is extremely important to many of our constituents. The motion has great appeal, but having looked at the detail, it is quite empty and poses many questions but gives no solutions to the problems that it identifies.
We must acknowledge the squeeze on the incomes of railway passengers over the past five years or so. Incomes have been stable at best for many people and salary increases have been well below price inflation. We need to recognise that fares have increased above inflation for the past 10 years. We must consider whether we can keep going back to those hard-pressed taxpayers year after year with those increases. In the debate about how we structure our fares, we must balance that need against the cost to all taxpayers of subsidising our railways, looking at how we can improve the efficiency of our railways, and ensuring that we see proper investment in the rail network and substantive service improvements. Having read the motion, I am far from certain that it strikes that balance.
There is no acknowledgement of the £16 billion of investment that the Government are putting into our rail infrastructure. That includes projects such as the Nuneaton to Coventry rail upgrade and electrification, which will bring a huge benefit to my constituents, particularly to my many unemployed constituents who are seeking work and do not have their own transport. The motion does not take into account the huge rail electrification programme and the new train and rolling stock programme, which will reduce the running costs of our railways substantially in the long term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) eloquently explained.
The motion makes no mention of the improvements that there have been for passengers, particularly on the west coast main line, which is now seeing an additional four Pendolino trains and 31 trains being lengthened. When I get on the train at Nuneaton on a Monday morning, although I have to walk further along the platform to get to standard class, I know that when I get there, there will at least be a seat for me because of the new carriages that have been inserted into the trains.
The motion also makes no mention of the £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion of efficiencies that were identified in the McNulty report. I hope that when the shadow Minister sums up, he will elaborate on whether his party supports making the savings identified by that report. After all, there is a cost to implementing the measures that his party is proposing.
I note that the Labour party again brings “flex” to the fore in the motion. Perhaps the Labour spokesman will explain why, as with so many other policies, his party pursued the “flex” policy until a few months before the general election and then changed the policy for only one year. He also needs to say why, if it is such an awful policy, his Labour colleagues in Wales are still using it. The motion calls on the Government to ban operators from increasing fares above a strict limit. That is a laudable aim, but the motion is silent on what that strict limit should be.
That brings me on to the cost of bus travel. We must again consider the cost of living and the squeeze on many people’s incomes. Many of the lowest-paid people in my constituency rely on buses to get to and from work. The Opposition have been rather opportunistic in the motion and seem to have added bus travel to it as an afterthought. The text about bus travel is even vaguer than the first part of the motion. Again, the motion does not acknowledge that fares increased by 35% between 1995 and 2010, which included 13 years of Labour Government. During that time, the average fare increases were well in excess of 2.5%—the same as over the past two years. However, over the past couple of years, the increases have been below the rate of inflation. I say to the Labour Front Benchers that, during the period of the Labour Government, the subsidy to bus operators increased by 127%, while fares also rose by a huge amount. That is not good value for money.
As I have pointed out, Labour’s record on bus travel was not good. We know that if it were in government, fuel would be 13p a litre more expensive and bus companies would be adding that cost to passengers’ fares, compounding the increases that we have seen over the past couple of years. I suspect that if that had been the case, we would not have seen the £4 million investment that Stagecoach has made in new buses in my constituency, which I welcomed several weeks ago.
We must take into account the pressures faced by all our constituents and limit fare increases, but we must also acknowledge the taxpayer contribution and ensure that our public transport is fit and efficient for the future.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
This is an incredibly important issue for the people of Plymouth and the far south-west. We are well over three hours away from London by train, we have no air link, so a vital connection to a city of 300,000 people is missing, and we have only two major road links. Yet the new fare for an anytime single to or from London with First Great Western is £131.50, and a single between Liskeard and Exeter, which is within the travel-to-work time that the Department for Work and Pensions thinks acceptable, is now £24. That is just for a one-way journey, which is prohibitive in an area of low wages. South West Trains has announced an average fare rise of 5.8% on its network.
I accept that running what is a Victorian rail network is not cheap, and Network Rail has been carrying out work, much of which was started under the previous Government, and driving cost savings through the system. Work such as improving the signals at Reading will eventually lead to time and cost savings as well as improvements in reliability. Can the Minister say, though, whether there is any scope for Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation to work beyond the plans for the immediate control period and contemplate a degree of flexing in projects that are earmarked for control period 5 or 6? Since the publication of the initial industry plan, it seems to have been recognised that there can be instances in which forward planning to the end of control period 10 could be acceptable, and I would welcome his comments on that.
Travelling by rail is expensive, and I believe that most passengers are generally willing to accept an increase in their fares in return for a reliable, comfortable journey. What they cannot accept is an increase when the flexibility in fares potentially allows money to go into the pockets of the private train companies and their shareholders. Even the National Audit Office has commented that the Government have not been able to demonstrate that allowing companies the flexibility to charge an additional 5% will not lead to the profits going straight to the train companies.
We know that the increases are hitting low and middle-income families hardest, and we in the south-west simply cannot accept them, particularly as we lose out in identifiable rail expenditure, as the answer to my recent parliamentary question showed. We get just £40 a head, compared with £119 elsewhere.
We have a serious problem with the reliability and resilience of the rail network. On two recent occasions I was on the last train through the system before the line was closed, the first time due to the flooding at Cowley junction outside Exeter and the second time when the sleeper train that I was on was caught in a landslide on the Friday before Christmas. It got through, but with various diversions. There are serious issues to address, and I am concerned by the fact that Cowley junction was not on the recent Network Rail list of projects. What we urgently need, and what Plymouth city council and its leader Tudor Evans have been pushing for, is a rail resilience taskforce. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that proposal.
The problems were threefold during the recent flooding. First, when the lines went down, communications were poor, with websites not being updated. To be fair to First, it now has a pretty good system in place, but I know from personal experience just how much conflicting information came out. Secondly, contingency plans were not in place. Buses were not immediately available, despite the forewarnings of bad weather. The bus operators could not communicate with the train companies, so there is more to be done. However, I want to put on record my gratitude and that of others to the people who worked in horrendously difficult conditions, including the emergency services.
Thirdly, we could do better on infrastructure management. Some £25 million has been spent on Dawlish, yet the signalling cabinets at Cowley and Taunton are still not properly protected. I do not need to tell the Minister that there are often no drainage ditches in low-lying areas in the Somerset levels and no alternative routes that can be used if the main line to the far west goes down. With no air link, when the M5 is closed due to accidents we are effectively cut off.
Fare hikes at a time of low wage growth are hitting people hard. We understand fare increases if we see improvements and investment, but the Government have no strategic direction for rail in the south-west, and the likelihood of more heavy rain and more problems frankly worries the hell out of people and businesses in particular. If the strategic group is set up, as suggested by Councillor Evans, I hope that the Government will look at its proposals and at the cross-benefit analysis of putting such improvements in place, at the same time as improving our economy, as it will be able to run for 365 days a year.
What have we in the south-west got to do to gain recognition for our needs, particularly in Whitehall which —I venture to say—does not actually understand the south-west? When Ministers and officials liken a city the size of Plymouth to Hastings, we know we have a problem. We cannot escape the fact that we have a serious problem that will not be resolved by super peak tickets and more money going to rail company shareholders. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has set out a clear case for a different and fairer approach, and I ask the Secretary of State to respond to my specific proposals for the south-west.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for inviting me to deliver the winding-up speech for the Opposition. That was especially generous given yesterday’s front page on the “ConservativeHome” website and a lead article written by someone appropriately called Harry Phibbs—it was not spelled Fibs, although I am not sure what kind of future he thinks he has in politics. Mr Phibbs writes about a dozen politicians who he says should defect to the Conservatives, and he names me along with some other distinguished colleagues, including the former Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). I am grateful that the shadow Secretary of State trusts me with this winding-up speech in the face of such provocation.
I understand Mr Phibbs’s confusion, because in the 21st century, party lines can blur on some issues, of which equal marriage and Europe are good examples. On transport, however, and the motion before the House, nothing could be clearer: as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood laid out when opening the debate, bus fares are up twice the rate of inflation, services are disappearing and a prime ministerial promise of capping rail fares at 1% above inflation has been broken. Fares are increasing not by 4.3%—1% above inflation—but by 9.2%, and even worse, Government documents propose super-peak tickets that will cost even more. There are no problems with party lines on this issue. People are either with the vested interests—the train operating companies and the Government—or with hard-pressed commuters, the Transport Committee and the Opposition motion on the Order Paper. I will return to those issues shortly.
The Secretary of State generously joined the shadow Secretary of State’s tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), and—quite correctly—that was well greeted across the House. The Secretary of State has had difficult times during his short tenure. He is regarded as a honourable man but he has been picking up the pieces of the west coast main line franchise fiasco and the Davies commission signalled a Government U-turn—well, certainly a Conservative U-turn—on aviation policy in 2015. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is not the only Member critical of the delay in the announcement by the Davies commission, and she is joined by Mayor Boris Johnson and Lord Heseltine. In my view, however, the biggest mistake—
Jim Fitzpatrick
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me; he knows that time is very limited but I do not wish to be discourteous. I was about to pay him a compliment in saying that in my view, one of the biggest mistakes made by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), was scrapping road safety targets that had bipartisan support across the House for 30 years and massively reduced deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Indeed, I commend the Secretary of State because at least he has had the decency to bring in forecasts that acknowledge we need to measure such things and set an ambition to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on the roads.
We have heard a number of thoughtful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made relevant points about the east coast main line and local connections, as well as sharing disturbing data on staffing conditions. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), a former Department for Transport Parliamentary Private Secretary, mounted a sterling defence of the coalition, which was a good way to sweeten his special local pleading, which I am sure went down well.
The distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee covered the recommendation from the new Committee report, to which I shall refer in a moment. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) reminded us how the Lib Dems are the honest brokers in the coalition. He even got the Scottish National party on side, albeit briefly. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) used his characteristic gentle aggressiveness and Transport Committee experience to criticise Labour’s record, and sought to use European comparisons to justify UK prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) raised the question of overcrowding on her local trains, as well as high ticketing costs and local buses, and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) majored on the question of costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) raised a number of local issues as well as discussing major infrastructure items.
To return to the substance of the motion, according to the Department for Transport’s figures—the annual bus usage statistics for England—there was an increase in bus fares of 6.5%, which means fares have gone up by, on average, twice the rate of inflation. They have gone up by 5.4% in London. As we have heard, research has shown that one in five council-supported bus routes were cut or reduced last year, and that 41% of local authorities have had to axe services. That is not a good record on buses.
As we have heard, on rail fares, the Prime Minister promised to peg increases at 1% above inflation. That is another broken promise to add to the 70 missed targets headlined in The Daily Telegraph today—although perhaps it is one of the 70. The target was not only just missed; fare increases of up to 9.2% have been registered. And it gets worse: the Transport Committee states in its “Rail 2020” report:
“We recommend that the Government rule out forms of demand management which would lead to even higher fares for commuters on peak times”.
Why does it make that recommendation? It does so because of a quote from the Government’s rail fares and ticketing review from last year. The scriptwriters from “Yes, Minister” could not have improved on this language, and hon. Members will need to concentrate on the words:
“To provide a stronger incentive for behavioural change and more even usage of peak capacity among existing passengers, a wider ‘menu’ of fares could…also include a ‘high peak’ fare priced higher than the current Anytime day fare, a season ticket priced higher than the current season ticket”,
which means higher prices on routes. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, because the Secretary of State did not refer to it, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood raised the super-peak ticket on a number of occasions.
Labour’s position is a total contrast. The noble Lord Adonis set out his view last year of the policy he followed as Secretary of State in 2010. He said:
“Prior to 2010, train companies had the right to increase individual fares by up to five per cent above the…RPI+1 per cent level. This was a legacy of the privatisation settlement. I scrapped this flexibility because I believed it was deeply unfair”.
Of his successor as Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, Lord Adonis has said:
“It was my firm intention to continue the policy for subsequent years, and I was mystified when…my successor…reinstated the fares flexibility. The only people who supported this change were the train companies. It is the job of government to be on the side of the travelling public. Labour took this seriously, which is why we scrapped the fares flexibility. By contrast, the present government appears just to be on the side of the train companies.”
Government Members asked why the policy was introduced only in 2010. That is a legitimate question, but a better one would be: why has it not been repeated since 2010? We have had three years of coalition fares increases, but the policy has not been back.
The Prime Minister promised capped fares, but it has not happened, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), held out the prospect of the end of the era of above-inflation fare increases, but when asked by the BBC when that would happen, he could not answer. The Government are out of touch on rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood quoted the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who said that rail is a “rich man’s toy”. The Under-Secretary of State—long-serving in the Government; long-suffering on the Opposition Benches—tried to claim over the new year that rail fares were
“not nearly as expensive as”
they were “being presented”, and that passengers were paying for a “premium service”. If by “premium service” he means paying more, getting less and standing for longer, I agree. Just this week, the rail Minister, the Minister of State, was bullied into using rail by the media, which was a sad passage.
Labour would put passengers first by banning train companies from increasing fares above a cap set by Ministers. Government Members have the opportunity to stand up for their rail and bus commuters by supporting our motion tonight in the Lobby. I strongly urge them to do so and I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the House on the crucial issue of public transport fares. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, and in the time remaining I will try to refer to as many of the issues raised as possible.
Let me say first that we fully understand and share concerns about the impact of public transport fares on the cost of living. That is why we have committed to retain free concessionary bus travel for older and disabled people. By the way, I applaud bus operators for offering free travel to jobseekers during this month to help them back into work. That is why we protected bus subsidy from the worst of the cuts and provided significant new funding streams to promote bus travel, and that is why we have chosen to keep the average cost of fare rises on the railway to 1% above inflation, scrapping the planned RPI plus 3% that would have otherwise come into effect this month.
Of course, we have inherited a position from the previous Labour Government who from 2004 onwards adopted a policy of relentless, real-terms year-on-year increases of 1% above inflation, a policy to which I understand the Labour party is still indefinitely committed. I note that from 1997 to 2010, rail fares rose by 66% under the previous Government. This Government, on the other hand, are determined to end the era of above-inflation rises as soon as we can, and I will come on to that in a moment.
Unlike the Labour party, which presided over a bloated and inefficient Network Rail and did nothing about it, we are taking forward steps with the industry, including a reinvigorated Network Rail, to reduce its costs by up to 30%. That is progressing well and we will release significant funds to return to the taxpayer and to the fare payer.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that in the south-west we have a very big problem with flooding? We need to have the A303 dualled and the A38 sorted out. We need more trains getting into Plymouth early, and we need to ensure that we have more three-hour train journeys.
Norman Baker
I was in the south-west yesterday, in Exeter and Newton Abbott, and I saw fully the problems of the Somerset levels and Cowley bridge in particular. I am taking that specific matter up with Network Rail. As for the other matters, my hon. Friend has put his points firmly on the record, as I am sure he intended.
Detractors—I am afraid I include those on the Opposition Front Bench—have sought to find the biggest fare rise and portray it as representative of the whole story, which of course is simply misleading. Why they wish to frighten people off the railway, I am not entirely clear. Fares are not as expensive as some wish to present. Passengers who look beyond the headline quotes will see the bigger picture on train fares. Under the rules that permit flexibility within fares baskets—the Opposition apparently now dislike them, but they were very happy with them when they introduced them and carried them through for a number of years—for every fare that increases by more than the average, other fares must increase by less than the average, remain static or fall.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has made a big play about the 5% available to train companies. I did not hear her condemn the fact that Labour introduced that. I did not hear her condemn that fact that it was introduced on the very eve of the 2010 general election, with a legal proviso saying that it should be reversed on 1 January 2011. I did not hear her condemn the Labour-run Welsh Government, where flex continues to operate—or is it all right in Wales and not in England? Nor did I hear her refer in her opening remarks to the fares that have risen below inflation, or even come down. For example, season tickets between Shenfield and London, and between Gatwick and Croydon, have come down. Why does she want the passengers buying those season tickets to pay more under her arrangements than they are paying under our arrangements? Why does she want commuters between Ormskirk and Blackpool, who have seen their fares come down by 9%, to pay more? This is opportunism with a capital O that we are hearing from the Opposition. Of course, they are not interested in the fares that have come down. They are not interested in helping passengers; they are interested in misrepresenting the position to make political points. [Interruption.] Passengers welcome the fact that there are many cheap deals available on the railway that they can take advantage of.
Let me say this. Of course, there are some higher fares and there are particular higher fares paid by commuters. Everyone on the Government Benches recognises that, which is why we are busy looking at the fares and ticketing review and why we have sought to ensure we get better value from the railways to enable money to be returned to the taxpayer and the fare payer. It is also the case, however, that those who are able to travel outside the busiest periods can benefit from some of the cheapest fares in Europe. For example, advance fares are available from London to Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds for £6, or from London to Glasgow in the middle of the day for less than £30. Cheap advance fares have been a major contributor to the massive growth in the number of people using our railways in recent years. It is a real success story, and one of the reasons why we have more people on the railway now than at any time since 1929. That is not the picture the Opposition wish to portray, but it is the truth nevertheless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) rightly referred to the need for a balanced comparison between different fares. Independent analysis by the website he referred to, “The Man in Seat Sixty-One”, has shown that only 15%, or thereabouts, of the tickets available in the UK are among the highest-priced in Europe. The other 85% are equal to, if not cheaper than, their comparators in other European countries.
On the fares and ticketing review, we are determined to ensure that passenger interests are catered for. We know that the picture can be confusing, even to the initiated, so we are considering how to make fares and ticketing more modern, more transparent, more flexible and more user friendly. In response to the Chairman of the Transport Committee, I say that we are doing a great deal on smart ticketing, which is integral to the fares and ticketing review, and transparency is a key element of that review. By driving innovation and exploiting the opportunities from new technologies, we can make the railway easier to use, tackle crowding and make the best possible use of the existing network.
On buses, if we believed what the Opposition said, we would think we were approaching the end of civilisation, that there were no buses left on the roads, and that it had turned into “Mad Max 3”. Indeed, I get the impression that Labour would grimly welcome that, with an “I told you so” satisfaction, were it to materialise.
On 28 February, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) warned of a Beeching-style cull of our bus network. It is true that in some areas local authorities have cut services probably unnecessarily. Campaign for Better Transport refers to Nottingham city council, which is Labour-run, Stoke-on-Trent city council, Darlington borough council, Leicester city council and Halton borough council, so perhaps she should put her own house in order before she starts attacking the Government.
Here is the good news, which we would not get from the Opposition either: passenger journeys in 2012, measured on the third quarter, are up 0.6% from the same quarter the year before. [Interruption.] Members are shouting about London. Even with London taken out, passenger journeys are down just 0.8% on last year. Is that a Beeching-style cut? Total bus mileage is only down 0.8% as well.
We are seeing that good innovation can work wonders. In Sheffield, for example, a wonderful partnership has been established by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, and the price of multi-operated tickets has been reduced by 14% to stimulate passenger growth further. In Sheffield, First has reduced its commercial fares by almost 40%. Weekly and daily tickets now cost £11 and £3.40 respectively, compared to the previous prices of £18.50 and £4.60. FirstGroup has seen passenger growth higher than 20% across the whole of Sheffield, which equates to more than 50,000 additional First Bus journeys. We want to see bus companies working with local authorities. It is driving up passenger numbers, where they make the effort, but where they are slashing and burning, as they are in some local authorities, of course the consequences are different.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) quite rightly referred to electrification taking costs out of the railway. That is a key purpose in what we are doing, as well reducing carbon emissions. I am very proud to be part of a Government which is electrifying 850 miles of track—one in nine miles of the network being electrified, compared with the nine miles electrified by the previous Government in 13 years. I have heard no apology for that failure to invest in the future.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
european union documents
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Speed Limits (Rural Lincolnshire)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a great honour and a privilege to have tonight’s Adjournment debate and to raise an issue that I know is of great importance to many of my constituents—the issue of speed limits in rural Lincolnshire. The existence—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Those Members who are leaving the Chamber should do so quickly and quietly so that we can hear the Adjournment debate.
Stephen Phillips
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The existence of speed limits on our roads does a huge amount to reduce road deaths and accidents, and appropriate speed limits, particularly in residential areas, offer clear benefits in safety. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a vehicle travelling at 20 mph at the onset of an incident will stop in time to avoid a child who is running out three car-lengths in front, while the same vehicle travelling at 25 mph—only 5 mph faster—will still be travelling at 18 mph at the three-car-lengths marker. A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 18 mph is likely to suffer at least serious injury, and at that speed the effect on a child is roughly the same as the effect of falling backwards out of a first-floor window. A pedestrian who is struck at 20 mph has a 97% chance of survival; at 30 mph the figure is 80%; and at 35 mph it falls to 50%. It is plainly not appropriate for low speed limits to operate on every road, even in residential areas, but, as those in communities throughout my constituency tell me repeatedly, the setting and enforcement of proper limits in areas where pedestrians are likely to be found are critical to survivability rates.
The Government’s responsibility in all this is to set national default speed limits for different types of roads, and the present policy recognises—as it should—that residential areas need lower limits. However, local authorities can set different speed limits on roads where local needs and considerations suggest that the default limit is not appropriate. Many people living in a number of villages in my constituency say that their local speed limits are too high, and that Lincolnshire county council will not listen to their representations and lower them.
The current Government guidelines clearly state that although 30 mph is the standard speed limit for urban areas, a 40 mph limit may be used where appropriate. Roads considered suitable for 40 mph limits are those that are regarded as higher-quality suburban roads, or roads on the outskirts of urban areas where there is little development. Roads considered suitable for 40 mph limits should be wider than a standard urban street, and should have parking and waiting restrictions in operation and buildings set back from the road. There should be enough space for people on bikes, on horses and on foot to be segregated from the traffic, and there should be adequate crossing places.
Those guidelines, however, are not always followed. For instance, they do not apply, or have not applied, in the village of Fulbeck in my constituency. Fulbeck is bisected by a section of A road with a 40 mph limit, which is inappropriate. The village amenities are on both sides of the road. There is, for example, a popular children’s playground on one side, while the majority of dwellings are on the other. Children and elderly people struggle to cross what is a very busy road with blind bends, which is used by many heavy goods vehicles. Even fit adult villagers feel that they are taking their lives in their hands when they try to cross the road, and motorists are too often misled in a manner that leads to traffic incidents. Only this week, we saw a car leave the road. It is plain to all that the existing 40 mph limit in Fulbeck is simply too high, but my efforts—and those of villagers—to have it reduced to 30 mph have been to no avail, despite Government guidance that that should be the standard speed limit in all villages.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on securing a debate that is very important to Lincolnshire. As a result of my campaign in the Allendale road in Hexham, we reduced the speed limit outside a school to 20 mph. Is that not exactly the sort of campaign that the Government should be encouraging? Should not Government guidance strongly recommend the lowering of speed limits in the vicinity of primary schools in particular?
Stephen Phillips
My hon. Friend has made an important and valuable point. I am making general points about speed limits in villages, but there is a very good case for them to be even lower near schools. In parts of my constituency, there are 20 mph advisory speed limits. I think that those should be encouraged, and I hope the Minister will confirm that they will be.
The Government’s present guidelines also state that in exceptional circumstances—which must, by definition, be rare—a 50 mph limit may be used on higher-quality roads where there is little or no roadside development. Among the roads considered most suitable for that limit are primary distributors with segregated junctions and pedestrian facilities. They would usually be dual carriageway roads or bypasses that have become partially built up. Again, however—at least in Lincolnshire—many of my constituents feel that the guidelines are not being followed, and that there are 50 mph speed limits in residential areas where plainly they should not be.
One section of the B1188, which runs through Branston, is a good example. It carries in excess of 12,000 vehicles per day, more than many of the A roads that serve Lincoln. None the less, there is a 50 mph limit, despite the existence of a double bend with limited visibility and access to farmyards and residential properties on it. The combined cycle and pedestrian path on this stretch is narrow and in poor condition, and, in the vicinity of the double bend, it is adjacent to the carriageway, with no kerb or verge to protect users. Indeed, it is in such poor condition that many cyclists prefer to use the road, further increasing the risk of collision.
A 50 mph limit is also in place through West Willoughby, a small village on a main A road in my constituency, where the road has a blind bend with private and farm entrances, a bus stop in each direction, and a post box on one side only. There is also a blind summit just outside the village, which considerably restricts the view of drivers both travelling on the main road and trying to turn out on to it. Slow and large farm vehicles are of course a particular hazard in that area.
In both those cases, there has been no reduction in speed limits in accordance with the Government’s guidelines, despite strong urging from me and the communities affected. In those cases, as in that of Fulbeck, I would like the Minister to undertake to come to the communities concerned and to look at the situation with me and do all he can to persuade the county council to follow the guidance his Department has given.
I have already mentioned the fact—and it is a fact—that Government guidelines are clear that a village should have a 30 mph speed limit. The present policy in Lincolnshire simply does not allow for that, and instead counter-intuitively insists that a mean speed calculation be used to set the limit. In effect, speed limits are endorsing what are often dangerous speeds through residential village areas.
In the case of West Willoughby a mean speed calculation meant a reduction from the national speed limit to 50 mph, but anyone who has been through the village will know that that is still too fast for sight stopping distances on the blind bend. Current policy in Lincolnshire does not allow that to be taken into account, however. Indeed, so defective is the policy in its present formulation that it removes the possibility of any discretionary decisions by highways officers, meaning that obvious dangers cannot be considered when they clearly should be.
The mean speed method of establishing limits is ridiculous. In the course of calculating the mean speed, a recording of vehicle speeds is taken for a week, but that includes the speeds of drivers breaking the limit. Figures provided by Lincolnshire county council from one recording in West Willoughby gave an average of 800 vehicles a day exceeding the national speed limit of 60 mph, with 70 of them exceeding 70 mph. The mean speed is therefore pushed up by those breaking the law, and if that is used to set speed limits, that is clearly potty. If Government guidelines are to suggest the use of mean speeds for calculating speed limits, the methodology should be associated with rural open roads alone, not those passing through villages. I hope the Minister will tell me that he will make that clear to the county council.
In October 2011, I joined local campaigners from Fulbeck and West Willoughby in meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was then the responsible Minister in the Department for Transport. He agreed with us that no effective response has been made to local concerns for years and that action was needed. What is needed now is for the current Minister to get involved directly. I hope he will be able to tell me this evening that that is what he proposes to do.
I accept that there are particular circumstances associated with the county in which I make my home, namely the lack of trunk roads and the high number of small villages scattered in ribbon developments. That necessarily means that efficiency will dictate higher speed limits on open roads than might be the case in urban settings, but to suggest that it should dictate the same in village situations is to run the risk that the safety of my constituents will be trumped by the need to keep traffic moving between major population centres, which I could not accept.
I know that the Government are undertaking a general review of their guidelines to local authorities on local speed limits. I therefore want the Minister to tell me that he will listen to the points made by me and my constituents, and that if common sense based on guidance issued by his Department is ignored, as is too often the case at present, he will act to make the guidance on village speed limits binding. Only then will I feel that I have done what I can to ensure the safety on Lincolnshire’s roads of those whom I was sent to this House to represent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing an important debate on speed limits, not only in Lincolnshire, but in rural areas more widely. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a contribution that reiterated that road safety in rural areas is a key priority for many hon. Members, and it is a top priority for the Government and for me. Clearly, road deaths and injuries are not just statistics; they are tragedies for all those affected. Behind the statistics are men, women and children. Much of the harm and cost is avoidable, and those things are not the inevitable consequence of road transport.
Britain is a world leader in road safety. Although we can be rightly proud of that fact, there can never be any room for complacency. As we set out in the strategic framework for road safety, the focus is on increasing the range of educational options for drivers who make genuine mistakes, while improving enforcement against the most dangerous and deliberate offenders.
It is well known that a byword of this Government is our belief in localism. Therefore I believe that, wherever possible, local authorities should have the freedom to make their own decisions about road safety, according to their own local needs, and to develop local solutions. In many cases, part of ensuring road safety must involve the speed limits set in those areas.
I thought it would be useful to state at the outset the Government’s position and thinking on the setting and enforcing of speed limits. As my hon. and learned Friend said, national speed limits are clearly not appropriate for all roads. Traffic authorities set local speed limits where local needs and conditions demand a speed limit lower than the national speed limit. Speed limits need to be suitable for local conditions, and I hope that many in the House would recognise that councils are best placed to determine what those limits are, based on local knowledge and the views of the community, and having regard to guidance issued by the Department, and to the law and enforcement methods available to them.
As part of our campaign to keep improving road safety, we have already given local authorities the power to introduce 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones on their roads if they believe it appropriate to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made the point about 20 mph speed limits around schools, and it is exactly this power that we would hope local authorities would use. The Department provides local authorities with guidance on setting local speed limits, including 20 mph speed limits, and the conditions in which they should be set, in order to ensure that they are set appropriately and consistently, while allowing the flexibility to deal with local needs and conditions. It is also worth remembering that speed limits are only one part of rural safety management; the nature and layout of the road, and the mix of traffic also need to be considered. To achieve a change in motorists’ behaviour and compliance with the local limits, supporting physical measures are often required, as is local publicity.
On enforcement, it is of course for the police and local authorities to decide whether to use speed cameras, and how they wish to operate them. However, the Government do not believe that cameras should be used as the default solution in reducing accidents, and nor should they be used as a way of raising revenue. Local organisations and local authorities should seek ways other than just cameras to improve safety on their roads.
As we explained in our strategic framework for road safety, local communities can directly influence the use of their roads, as my hon. and learned Friend said his community has been doing, by various methods, one of which is the community road watch scheme, whereby local volunteers work with the police to monitor local roads. They can often provide valuable data and suggestions as to local road safety. However, it must be for traffic authorities to set speed limits that strike a sensible balance between the needs of all road users.
My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the 40 mph zones. The Department particularly wanted to consider appropriate areas—outside villages and in some areas of natural beauty—for using 40 mph zones. The Department wrote to the County Surveyors Society traffic and safety group in 2009 offering funding for local authorities to look at having 40 mph zones with the speed limit painted on the carriageway, so that some of the road safety benefits could be introduced without the ugliness of repeater signs on poles by the roadside. However, it is a disappointment that, to date, no local authorities have taken advantage of that opportunity. There are some 40 mph zones in rural areas, but I hope that others will consider the benefits of improved signage and road safety when taking advantage of the scheme.
I hope that I have already made it clear that road safety is a key priority for the Government and for me personally and we continue to take steps to improve the safety of our roads. None the less, if we consider the differential impact of road accidents on rural and urban roads, we can see that some two thirds of fatal traffic accidents happened on rural roads. The Department’s analysis of collision and casualty data shows that in Great Britain in 2011 rural roads accounted for 66% of all road deaths and 82% of car occupant deaths, but under 45% of the distance travelled. It is clear that although we have seen an overall reduction in road deaths and an improvement in the road safety statistics, rural roads have proportionately suffered a major impact.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to the particular issue in Lincolnshire and I was disappointed to hear that there had been yet another accident in only the last week. Since 2008, the number of people seriously injured on rural roads has increased, bucking the general trend. As my hon. and learned Friend articulated well, local residents in the village of Fulbeck wish to see a lower speed limit. He was right to highlight his correspondence with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and I have read it through. It is clear that although the setting of local speed limits is primarily a matter for local authorities, and therefore an issue on which I am loth to and on which I would usually consider it inappropriate to intervene, I encourage local authorities to ensure that their speed limits are in line with the Department’s guidelines and are kept under review as circumstances change. The Government encourage local authorities to consider the introduction of more 20 mph limits and zones, particularly in built-up villages such as that described by my hon. and learned Friend. I look forward to discussing the issue with him when I visit his constituency later in the year.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to the Department’s guidelines to local authorities on speed limits. We have recently consulted on the revision and reissue of those guidelines on setting speed limits in urban and rural areas and we intend to publish the revised speed limit circular shortly. The guidelines should be used for setting all local speed limits on single and dual carriageway roads in urban and rural areas and aim to provide greater clarity to local authorities about where and how to set those limits. I hope they will find that helpful. The guidance should be the basis for assessing local speed limits and for developing route management strategies and the speed management strategies that can be used in local plans.
My hon. and learned Friend will be interested to note that the guidance will clearly show traffic authorities that they should keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances and consider the introduction of more speed limits in urban areas, and primarily residential built-up village streets, to ensure greater safety for residents and users of the road. The Department would expect a 30 mph speed limit to be the norm in villages, but in many villages a 20 mph zone or limit might be more appropriate.
I note that in the correspondence between my hon. and learned Friend and my predecessor there was some dispute about what might or might not constitute a village or the middle of a village. The final decision on whether a settlement is a village for the purposes of setting a speed limit is a matter for local authorities, but my hon. and learned Friend will be interested to hear that we are offering guidance on what definition of a village should be used when a decision about appropriate speed limits is being made; it involves 20 or more houses on one or both sides of the road and a minimum length of 600 metres. If there are fewer than 20 houses we suggest that, when setting speed limits, traffic authorities should make special allowance for any other key buildings, such as a church, shop or school.
We are also developing a web-based tool, which will allow local authorities to assess the full costs and benefits of any proposed scheme and the speed limits most suitable for local conditions. We hope that all local authorities will take advantage of the scheme when reviewing their local speed limits.
As I have already stressed, the Government believe that wherever possible local authorities should have the freedom to make their own decisions so that they develop solutions most appropriate for their local needs. The Government do not intend to make our guidance on setting speed limits mandatory. However, we expect local authorities to use and follow the guidance in determining the circumstances for setting local speed limits. I hope that Lincolnshire county council, as it has suggested in correspondence to one of my hon. and learned Friend’s constituents, will use the guidance, keep speed limits under review and be able to access the new tool.
In closing, I should say that I will be delighted to accept my hon. and learned Friend’s kind invitation to both Fulbeck and West Willoughby; I understand that my officials and his office are already corresponding about a date for that. I look forward to seeing the problems that he has talked about tonight at first hand. I hope that representatives of Lincolnshire county council will have listened to his contribution and those of his constituents and that by the time I reach Fulbeck, the problem will have been solved.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Arpley Landfill Site
Rohingya Community
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 4 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
Diabetes
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
I want to put on the record the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, although the debate is about diabetes more generally. Type 1 diabetes develops when the body’s immune system attacks and destroys the cells that produce insulin. As a result, the body is unable to produce insulin, which leads to increased blood glucose levels and in turn can cause serious organ damage to all organ systems in the body. About 15% of people with diabetes in the UK are type 1s. I wish to declare my interest as someone who was diagnosed as type 1 nearly a quarter of a century ago, and I am still here. Type 2 diabetes develops when the body does not produce enough insulin to maintain a normal blood glucose level or is unable effectively to use the insulin produced. The long-term complications that challenge both type 1 and type 2 sufferers are much the same.
Diabetes remains one of the largest challenges to our health care system, with about 3.7 million sufferers in the UK; almost 1 million more are estimated to have the condition, although they do not know it. The numbers are expected to rise, which all makes for a significant challenge to the NHS, with an estimated spend of £10 billion a year on diabetes-related treatments. Much of that spend is unnecessary: people with the condition far too often suffer from late diagnosis, preventable complications and variations in care; they are often overlooked for specialist care when being treated for other conditions, particularly as in-patients; and they can be prevented from accessing treatment by the short-term financial ethos embedded in some primary care trusts.
None the less, we have made progress in recent years. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the former ministerial team for the open and constructive way in which they pursued the issue and ensured that diabetes remained a high priority during the stormy times of NHS reform. The all-party group on diabetes, which I chair, has already met the new Minister, and I am confident that the good progress will be sustained, if not surpassed. I am already heartened by the new Secretary of State’s pledge to focus more on patient outcomes and the patient experience. Let us hope that that intention manifests itself in clear instructions for managers and commissioners.
One of the priorities on which Ministers can have a direct impact is the promotion of leadership by the Department of Health. In recent years, a problem has arisen from the apparent inability to disseminate best practice around the UK and the unwillingness of some NHS organisations to implement it.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his amazing work on diabetes over his parliamentary career. As he has done, I have tabled questions to ask simply how high the spend on diabetes was in individual PCTs last year, only to be told that the information was not available and so could not be given to me. Is not that kind of information vital for an effective strategy on diabetes?
Mr Sanders
That would certainly be extremely helpful and would complement the atlas of care by, in a sense, putting the actuality into the story behind the figures. It is extremely unhelpful not to be able to drill down to what is really happening on the ground; we could do that if such statistics were available.
Some of the problems of disseminating information have been offset by the work of NHS Diabetes. It has been instrumental, first, in monitoring variations in care and driving the collection of more robust data, which has culminated in an extremely important publication, the national atlas of variation; and, secondly, in working tirelessly to rectify the problems it uncovers, linking national policy intention with policy implementation on the ground, including support targeted on where the greatest improvements are necessary. It is important that that work continues, as much more could be done. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that, despite the upheavals in the commissioning architecture, NHS Diabetes will retain its central role.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his fantastic work as chairman of the all-party group on diabetes. Does he agree that there need to be performance targets, like those for cancer, stroke and heart disease? At the moment, there are not the mandatory performance targets for diabetes that there are for those other diseases.
Mr Sanders
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. When one puts together speeches, they sometimes go on too long, and I had cut out that bit, so I am glad that he has raised it. The big issue is that the cause of death is sometimes recorded as stroke or heart disease when the underlying problem is diabetes. We have targets for cancer, heart disease and stroke. We really ought to look at diabetes as the root cause of other conditions for which there are targets.
The variation in care across the country is probably the largest worry for patients now, and the new implementation plan should focus on that. Failings in diabetes care cause an estimated 24,000 premature deaths each year. In 2001, the Department of Health published the national service framework for diabetes, which set out clear minimum standards for good diabetes care. Those standards include nine basic care processes that aim to end preventable complications by looking for early warning signs. Despite those targets, much of the country has seen little progress towards improving detection of type 2 diabetes and reducing the number of preventable diabetes complications. In 2009-10, results from the national diabetes audit showed wild variations in inputs and outcomes for both type 1 and type 2, including the astounding figure that the proportion of type 1s receiving the recommended nine care processes ranged from as low as 5% to 50%, with an average of 32% in England. The figures were only marginally better for type 2s. It really is not good enough.
The point about the condition is that people treat themselves 364 days a year and see a practice nurse or sometimes a general practitioner—more rarely, these days, a consultant—only once a year, although they should receive the nine care processes. The chance of developing diabetic complications can be reduced by keeping blood pressure, blood glucose levels and cholesterol levels low. Regular monitoring, backed up by periodic checks, is the key. The results from the national diabetes audit demonstrate that more needs to be done to end the postcode lottery of care for people with the condition. When as few as 5% of people with type 1 diabetes are receiving all nine care processes in some areas, there is a definite failure of care. If all health care trusts followed the national service framework, such complications as blindness and kidney disease—as well as stroke, heart and other diseases—could be prevented.
I hope that we will explore a range of best practices, but I want to highlight a couple that have scope to bring immediate improvement at very little cost. An acute issue is the provision of insulin pumps for type 1s. That is an example of where the UK should look abroad for best practice. Type 1s in other developed countries, such as France, Germany or the US, can expect to benefit from a pump if that is required for their diabetes management. Somewhere between 15% and 35% of type 1s in those countries have pumps, which enables them to lead normal lives, but in the UK the figure is less than 4%. That is clearly a failure of the commissioning structure as it is now. Will the Minister address how that is likely to improve? The Work Foundation has estimated that, if pump usage reached 12%, the NHS would save about £60 million a year.
Another example of where best practice is needed is surprisingly simple: good local leadership. Good leadership, as I have been fortunate enough to experience in my own area of Torbay, is essential to promoting effective and integrated services. Integration is key to reducing costs in the long term and, more importantly, to improving patient outcomes, which all too often get lost in the debate over health care services.
The move to clinical commissioning groups, with the potential for better scrutiny and criticism from patient groups, local authorities and health care staff could, in theory, lead something of a revolution in spurring innovation and creativity and in the striving to find best practice.
Just as educating the commissioners is crucial, so, for diabetes, is patient education, which has the happy side effect of making patients far more aware of whether they are receiving a good service and enabling them to become better advocates for their condition. I have no doubt that the great knowledge possessed by volunteers for Diabetes UK, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, INPUT and the many other groups involved in diabetes will be a considerable asset in shaping good services at a local level now that we have better scope for patient scrutiny and involvement.
In the wider sense, patient education is the core to preventing complications, which diminish the quality of life for patients and which, all too often, reduce life expectancy and increase the costs to the NHS in the long term. Good patient education programmes may require some investment, but they would pay for themselves many times over.
On a broader level, work needs to be done on detection and prevention. The number of people suffering from type 2 diabetes is set to reach a staggering 5 million by 2025. However, what many people do not know is that type 2 diabetes is a largely preventable disease. At the very least, its onset can be delayed and complications reduced.
NHS checks are vital to the detection and prevention of diabetes. In theory, such checks are available to all 40 to 74-year-olds who are seen to be at risk of developing diabetes. Shockingly, a number of primary care trusts in the UK failed to offer a single person an NHS health check last year, which demonstrates the dangerous variations in provision in the NHS. The Government can look to rectify that if they create a new national implementation plan for diabetes. Indeed they may even take up the suggestion by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) to set targets for diabetes.
This year, the current national framework for diabetes comes to an end. It is important that we build on the successes of the framework, that we focus on reducing discrepancies in diabetes care and that the new framework emphasises the importance of health checks and prevention of the disease through simple means such as diet management. Indeed, it is essential for the Government to spell out to commissioners and to patients what services can be expected and to provide a road map to show where we want to be in a few years’ time and how to get there.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
My hon. Friend analyses the fair degree of regional variation that exists and talks about a postcode lottery. Does he think that that is primarily down to a lack of leadership at PCT level, or to the qualitative variations that we get anyway in primary care practice among GPs across the country?
Mr Sanders
It is a combination of both. We cannot prescribe from the centre precisely what must happen in every area. Of course local areas must reflect their own demographics and their own health picture and be able to apply priorities accordingly. However, there is something to be said for ensuring that local areas have the tools that they need, which is where NHS Diabetes did such a good job on the back of the NHS framework for diabetes.
It is equally important that health checks are used to detect diabetes in its earliest stages, as early detection and appropriate treatment can prevent the severity of the condition and the risks associated with complications such as amputations.
Rehman Chishti
On health checks, the hon. Gentleman must have seen the report that says that, according to Diabetes UK, nine out of 10 people do not know the four main symptoms of type 1 diabetes. Surely, therefore, the education should look at ways in which people can identify for themselves the symptoms that can lead to type 1 diabetes.
Mr Sanders
That is a very good point. There is the 4 Ts campaign on diabetes. If I remember correctly, the four Ts are thirst, tiredness, toilet and one other— I always remember three, but not four. Anybody who feels thirstier or more tired than usual or is visiting the toilet more often should see their GP. A simple test—it is not an invasive test—can be conducted and after an appropriate early diagnosis a patient can start to feel better very quickly. An ancient fear of great big hypodermic needles being stuck in their skin deters many people from going to a GP, but only 15% of diabetics are put on to an insulin regime on diagnosis and that is because they suffer from type 1. Most type 2 sufferers never have to take insulin via an injection device, and, in any case, those devices are subcutaneous and really nothing to fear. I speak as someone who has to inject four or more times a day, and it really is not as bad as people fear. People should see their GP. If they do not, matters will get worse, complications will set in and they will rue the day that they did not sort out the problem early on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
I know that it is unusual for a Minister to intervene at this stage, but will the hon. Gentleman help me in this matter? Is it not right that there have been huge advances in the administration of insulin? A constituent of mine showed me the pump on his stomach that gives him the right amount of insulin. He even had a device on his mobile phone that could calculate from a photograph of a particular meal the amount of insulin that should be administered to his body. He clicks on the app and the insulin is given to him at the appropriate time, before or after he has his meal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are wonderful devices that should be prescribed to people as much as possible?
Mr Sanders
I cannot fail but to agree with every word that the Minister has said, and I am absolutely delighted that she has said that. Children in particular benefit from pumps, because they can go to school and lead normal lives alongside their school friends. It is difficult for them to find the space and time to inject, and these little devices are doing the job for them all the time. The technological advances are such that we may well reach a point in the not too distant future where there is a device that both tests a person’s blood sugar level and then injects an appropriate level of insulin, without them having to check what they are eating. The little device is like having a pancreas attached to the side of the body. That is where we are going. At the moment, however, pump usage is very low in the UK. It is about having not just the pump but the services behind the pump—the trained nurses who can train and educate the person to use the pump properly, the technological support that needs to be there to back it up and the medical expertise to understand the difference between a pump regime and any other regime. That is the detail, and I am really glad that the Minister is on the ball here.
The provision of education about diabetes seems to be somewhat of a lottery in terms of who is actually receiving information and advice. There needs to be a standardised programme of education on the condition that is accessible and effective for all.
We must not miss the opportunity to encourage healthier lifestyles as a consequence of the Olympic legacy. It is essential that funding and provision for sports facilities and physical education continue to be given priority in the coming years to capitalise on increased interest in active sport. The Olympics have given people who have perhaps never before enjoyed individual or team exercise a new drive and desire for sport, which needs to be harnessed and nurtured. Gym membership and even one-off sessions for swimming still seem to be extremely pricey, which makes those forms of exercise inaccessible for many who could perhaps benefit from them. However, I am aware that some inner-city areas have set up programmes that allow residents to use facilities at a reduced rate or even at no charge. I wonder whether that idea should be taken hold of by more UK communities, and whether the Government could assist all local authorities to find ways to subsidise it, perhaps by working in partnership with private sector organisations.
Having facilities and making them affordable is an issue, which is why I find it unbelievable that some local authorities, including my own, give permission for building on sports facilities; in Torbay, the only public grass tennis courts in the local area are about to be built on. Andy Murray won his Olympic gold medal on grass and generated more interest in the sport last year, and my area has produced some of the great British tennis players down the decades, including British men and women No. 1s in Mike Sangster and Sue Barker. That makes that act by my local authority one of unforgivable short-sightedness.
I have outlined many of the issues surrounding diabetes care, but I will concentrate now on some of the things that I hope the Minister will focus on delivering in the coming years. There needs to be a comprehensive national implementation plan, containing measures to ensure that local leadership is robust and long term in its thinking. Such a plan also requires measures to focus on detection and prevention, and it needs to ensure that best practice can be effectively disseminated. Three priorities face our NHS and other health care systems around the world: prevention; diagnosis; and care. We have a long way to go to meet the challenges of each one.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I will not impose a time limit on speeches, but four Members wish to speak and I would appreciate it if they could keep their contributions to around 10 minutes, or less, so that I can call all four of them.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Crausby, for calling me to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this important debate.
Sadly, we had 23 amputations from diabetes last year in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent, despite having a valued specialist foot ulcer clinic run by an advanced podiatry practitioner. So last November I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on how to prevent amputations resulting from diabetes.
The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, was given evidence that the NHS spends at least £3.9 billion a year on diabetes services. It is shocking that the lion’s share of that money is swallowed up in the treatment of avoidable complications. As we know, these complications are not minor; they include amputations, blindness and kidney disease. Such complications are extremely debilitating for the sufferer and extremely expensive to treat. In the worst cases, diabetes can lead to premature death. That is a waste of both precious lives and resources.
Health professionals say that there are 125 amputations weekly because of diabetes, yet 80% of those amputations are preventable. The National Audit Office says that we could save £34 million annually if late referrals to specialist teams were halved. So, it is in the interests of patients and NHS budgets to deliver effective services, with the emphasis—as ever—on prevention and early diagnosis.
The PAC’s report on diabetes services, which was published last November, found that fewer than half the people with diabetes receive the nine basic checks identified in minimum standards of care that were established more than 10 years ago. Unlike cancer, stroke and heart disease, there are no mandatory performance targets for diabetes.
The PAC report highlighted the postcode lottery in provision for people with diabetes, and it also said—to a chorus of consensus—what needs to be done. However, it is just not happening nationwide. Put bluntly, we found that money is being wasted. There is no strong national leadership; no effective accountability arrangements for health service commissioners; no appropriate performance incentives for providers, and no evidence to assure us that the new NHS structure would address the failings that have been identified.
The Leader of the House has told me that diabetes care is a Government priority. So I hope the Government will support a specific pledge that would be widely welcomed. The Putting Feet First campaign, the supporters of which include Diabetes UK and the College of Podiatry, wants there to be a realistic target of a 50% reduction in amputations because of diabetes by 2018. That is a crucial point, because the Health Minister, Earl Howe, told the House of Lords recently that
“Diabetic foot disease accounts for more hospital bed days than all other diabetes complications”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 331.]
Policies to deliver that target include having a multidisciplinary foot care team in every hospital. Shockingly, in 2011 31% of hospitals had no podiatry provision at all. We also need foot protection teams in every community, which will mean more, not fewer, podiatrists in post.
We need a strong message from Government that preventable amputations must be reduced, that local variations will not be tolerated and that precious NHS resources will not be wasted. In addition, as others have already said, the importance of patient engagement cannot be stated too often. In their current consultation on diabetes, the Welsh Government highlight the benefits of having more informed and more confident diabetes patients. Education is an integral part of personalised patient care.
I will now make some concluding comments about how we can turn the tide, given that current projections show that the number of people with diabetes will rise from 3.1 million to 3.8 million by 2020.
How can we improve diet, reduce alcohol consumption and encourage physical activity? Good ideas include: a reduction in the sugar content of soft drinks; a realistic minimum price for alcohol of 50p per unit; restrictions on advertising and sports sponsorship; action to maintain nutritious school meals; teaching our children to cook, and encouraging regular sport and exercise in schools. Together, these ideas are a promising mix of radical measures, unlike the Government’s “responsibility deal”, which is just another case of the triumph of hope over experience.
Last week, a report from the Royal College of Physicians called for a senior figure in Government to take charge of obesity issues across all Departments, covering every area from agriculture to work and pensions. In the US, we have seen the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, ban the sale of “super-size” drinks at entertainment venues. Similar bold and symbolic action is now urgently needed from the coalition Government here.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, there were 23 amputations in Blaenau Gwent last year because of diabetes, and across the UK there will have been many thousands of such amputations, many of which were preventable. The Government need to up their game.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, for this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing the debate on such an important issue, which affects a growing proportion of our population. Indeed, having listened to the contributions that have already been made, it is very clear that there are many facets of diabetes that could be covered during this debate, but I think that we will all probably concentrate on amputation. I will spend a few minutes focusing on the importance of podiatry services, which can reduce preventable amputations for those with diabetes.
Currently, 4% of the population live with diabetes, and a fifth of those people will develop a foot ulcer at some point. At any one time, there are 61,000 diabetics in England who have foot ulcers. A foot ulcer may not sound like a very serious condition, but for a diabetic the consequences of foot ulcers can be severe, and even fatal if the appropriate treatment is not given. Statistics for England alone show that, of those diabetics with foot ulcers, 6,000 people—that is 10% of the total number—had leg, toe or foot amputations in 2009-10. Based on current trends, that figure is projected to rise to 7,000 people by 2014-15. An amputation is devastating. If any individual loses a limb, it will have a far-reaching impact on their life. For many diabetics, an amputation can increase the likelihood of premature death.
Let me put those figures for diabetes in context. The five-year survival rate for those with breast cancer is just over 80%, but for those with a diabetic foot ulcer the five-year survival rate falls to just under 60%. For those people who have a lower limb amputation, their survival rate worsens after five years. The consequences are even more horrific when we consider that 80% of those amputations are preventable. In 2012, that is simply incredible. We are not doing everything we can to rectify that and to ensure that people have the information and services that will help them protect their limbs.
It is scandalous that with our 21st-century health care we are allowing people to go through the completely unnecessary, torturous and miserable experience of amputation. Prevention is supposed to be the watchword of the modern national health service; through prevention, people can enjoy a better quality of life and the NHS can save itself millions.
It is therefore hard to understand why better prevention is not deployed with diabetes and amputations. Why is more effective use of podiatry services not a priority for the health service? At a time when the number of diabetics is growing, and with it the costs of treatment, podiatry could be a means of improving a diabetic’s quality of life and saving the NHS money. Amputations cost the NHS considerable sums, which are estimated to be in the region of £600 million to £700 million each year.
Results from pilot projects can demonstrate the positive impact of investing in good podiatry services. A multidisciplinary foot care team for in-patients with diabetes in Southampton led to a reduction in the length of in-patient stays from 50 days to 18 days. Not only were patient outcomes improved but annual savings to the NHS of £900,000 were generated from an investment of £180,000. That savings ratio of £5 saved for every £1 invested was bettered in another example. In James Cook hospital in Middlesbrough, a multidisciplinary foot care team generated annual savings of some £250,000 at a cost of £30,000, which is a ratio of £8 saved for every £1 invested. Those figures show how it would be not only the Government and the NHS that reaped great rewards from a small investment, but diabetics and those who need podiatry care. Based on the pilot evidence, logic would suggest that even in these straitened times we should be investing in podiatry services, because that could save even more money and improve health.
There is evidence, however, that the opposite is happening and that services are not improving. The danger of the new arrangements is that important issues fall between the cracks, are left to local decision making and do not get the prioritisation they deserve. More than half of hospitals do not have a multidisciplinary foot care team. In fact, 31% of hospitals do not even have an in-patient podiatry service, according to data from the national diabetes in-patient audit in 2011. That reflects a worsening service, because in 2010 only 27% of sites had no provision. The amount of provision has dropped, and nearly a third of hospitals no longer have that service.
There is also evidence that there is a problem with GPs having no incentive to refer their patients on to a foot protection team for education or follow-up. Why is that? Why is this woeful situation tolerated? If more referrals were made, we would see a beneficial reduction in ulcer and amputation rates.
Rosie Cooper
I absolutely share that concern, which is why I cannot understand the current view that doctors do only what they get paid for and if there is no money attached to something, it may not be the first thing they do. As I pointed out in Westminster Hall yesterday, when we had a debate on the Liverpool care pathway, financial rewards to clinicians should not be the driver of what happens or the pathways that are followed. That is good clinical practice. Surely to goodness, if a referral to podiatry is required, that is what should happen. It could also be said that if the services are not there or are being reduced, the GP has less incentive to refer, knowing that it will take so long to get an appointment.
The College of Podiatry is
“fearful that public expenditure constraints mean that rather than being prioritised through the QIPP”—
quality, innovation, productivity and prevention—
“agenda, current podiatric services are at best, being frozen and in some cases being reduced, with patient services including the diabetic foot service deteriorating as a consequence”.
That has massive implications for the NHS budget and for the patients themselves. During a debate in the other place on 29 November 2012, the Under-Secretary of State, Earl Howe, accepted that
“rapid access to multidisciplinary foot care teams can lead to faster healing, fewer amputations and improved survival. Savings to the NHS can substantially exceed the cost of the team.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 336.]
My question for the Minister is whether the NHS, which is in the throes of a reorganisation and being more localised through clinical commissioning groups, as well as being put under increasing financial pressure, will move towards or away from having more multi- disciplinary foot care teams, given that fewer than half of hospitals currently have such a team. Investment in more podiatry services would result in improved foot screening, appropriate follow-up services, enhanced care when required, better outcomes—including fewer amputations—reduced length of stay in hospitals, increased quality adjusted life years and reduced morbidity. We would all win; we would have a healthier nation and significant financial savings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) for bringing this issue to the House. Secondly, I declare an interest, as I am a type 2 diabetic and have been for four years. It has given me a knowledge of, and an interest in, the issue, although not a total knowledge—far from it. It has also made me more aware when constituents come to me with issues relating to diabetes and has given me an interest in those issues.
The disease has completely changed my life, as it would, because it is type 2. Diabetes is a major issue in every constituency. As someone who enjoyed the sweet trolley more than anyone else—to use Northern Ireland terminology, when there was a bun-worry going on, I was at the front of the queue—the sweet stuff was something that I indulged in regularly. Along with my stress levels, that has meant that I am a diabetic today.
The statistics have been mentioned, but they bear repeating, due to the seriousness of the UK’s problem, which is etched in everyone’s minds. The UK has the fifth highest rate in the world of children with type 1 diabetes. In Northern Ireland, we have 1,040 children with type 1 diabetes, some of whom are born with the condition. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective, but I will bring in the UK strategy, because diabetes affects the whole UK, and that is why it is important. Some 24.5 children in every 100,000 aged 14 and under are diagnosed with the condition every year in the UK. We had a reception where we met some of those young people, and if we needed a focus, the focus was there that day for those of us who attended. I think that most of the people in the Chamber were there.
The UK’s rate is about twice as high as that in Spain, where it is 13 children in every 100,000, and in France, where it is 12.2 children in every 100,000. The league table covers only the 88 countries where the incidence of type 1 diabetes is recorded. There are 1,040 children under the age of 17 with type 1 diabetes in Northern Ireland, and almost one in four of them experienced diabetic ketoacidosis before a diagnosis was made.
Diabetic ketoacidosis can develop quickly. It occurs when a severe lack of insulin upsets the body’s normal chemical balance and causes it to produce poisonous chemicals known as ketones. If undetected, the ketones can result in serious illness, coma and even death. The diabetes itself is not the killer; it is the offshoots from it, the effects on the heart, circulation, blood pressure and sight, and the possibility of strokes and amputations.
The number of people living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes has increased by 33% in Northern Ireland. In my Strangford constituency, the number has gone up by 30%, with 800 people—I am one of them, by the way—becoming diabetic in the past seven years. That compares to 25% in England, 20% in Wales and 18% in Scotland. In our small part of the United Kingdom, the total number of adults—aged 17 and over and registered with GPs—with diabetes is 75,837, and a further 1,040 young people under the age of 17 have type 1. There has been a significant rise in that number also, with the prevalence in Northern Ireland now at more than 4%. An estimated 10,000 people in Northern Ireland have diabetes and do not know that they do. They have a ticking time bomb in their bodies; they wonder why they are not well, and the cause is diabetes.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is talking about the different prevalence of diabetes throughout the UK. Does he agree that best practice regarding early detection and the promotion of an active lifestyle could be a target for all the devolved regions across the UK and here in England? The Minister would do well to respond in relation to Ministers in the devolved regions taking on such best practice to combat diabetes.
Jim Shannon
Yes, I agree. When people make interventions, I always wonder whether they have read my script—preventive medication is the very next issue on it.
In my doctors surgery in Kircubbin and, indeed, across Northern Ireland preventive measures are in place. There are diabetic surgeries, and the matter is taken seriously. The UK strategy that we have had for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that will come to a conclusion this calendar year has made significant progress towards reducing the potential numbers, but diabetes has increased over the same period. There are some 100 diabetics in my doctors surgery in Kircubbin.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman talks about the United Kingdom strategy. Does he accept that certain people from different ethnic backgrounds are more likely to get diabetes? For example, according to the Wellcome Trust, 50% of people from south Asian and Afro-Caribbean backgrounds would have diabetes by the age of 80. Any UK strategy would therefore have to take ethnic composition into account, because such people are affected differently.
Jim Shannon
That is an excellent point, and I am sure that the Minister will address it in her response. There are groups in the whole of the United Kingdom in which diabetes is more prevalent, and we need to look at those target areas.
There are 3.7 million people in the UK diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I was diagnosed four years ago. With me, it was down to bad eating habits, stress and the fact that there were no set hours to my job. I ate whatever was quickest, and that was Chinese, usually with two bottles of coke, five nights a week. That was why I was 17 stone. I am now down to 14 and a half stone because I no longer do that. The issue is eating and living styles—eating what is quickest rather than what is best.
Edwin Poots, the Minister at the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland, is very aware of the ticking time bomb that is diabetes. I am aware of the key initiatives in operation in Northern Ireland, and I know that the Minister here today has had discussions with the Minister in Northern Ireland. They are doing a great job, including setting aside funding to employ additional diabetic staff—specialists, nurses, dieticians and podiatrists. That is providing all the help that a diabetic needs, but it is still not enough.
We need a concerted effort across the United Kingdom, through the media, and even perhaps through the TV soaps. I am not a soap watcher. I could not tell anyone what happens in “Emmerdale” or “Coronation Street”, but my wife could. She knows everyone in them—what they are doing this week and what will happen to them next week. Could we not perhaps use the soaps to make people more aware of the issue? I understand that plenty of issues are brought up in them regularly, so perhaps we should try this one.
It is great that our children are taught about diabetes in school. It is surprising what a five or 10-year-old knows about food that their mum and dad do not. Who is educating the mums and dads at home who are making the dinner and buying the shopping? The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made a point about how the food coming into the house is controlled by the parents. Diabetes UK Northern Ireland is taking part in an organisation-wide campaign entitled “Putting Feet First” to raise awareness of amputations among people living with diabetes and to work to prevent unnecessary amputations.
The Minister might want to comment on the new medications that are available. In the press this week, there was talk about a new diabetic medication in tablet form that could replace—not totally but partially—type 1 injections. The figure used was a cost of £35 per month. It would be good if we could get some feedback about whether the new medications will be available across the United Kingdom and whether everyone will be able to take advantage of them.
In Northern Ireland last year, 199 diabetes-related amputations took place, and the “Putting Feet First” campaign highlights that an estimated 80% of lower- limb amputations are preventable. There must be a UK strategy to reduce diabetes-related amputations by 50% over the next five years. What can we put in place in this Chamber to highlight and support the campaign? How can we use our influence to see the number of cases of type 2 diabetes dropping, instead of this steady rise?
The links between type 2 diabetes and obesity are firmly established, and it is clear that, without appropriate intervention, obesity can develop into diabetes over a relatively short time. For instance, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes is about 20 times more likely in obese, compared to lean, people. A newspaper recently stated that academic sources have estimated that the predicted rise in obesity rates over the next 20 years will result in more than 1 million extra cases of type 2 diabetes, and that is really worrying. Can that go unchallenged, when it is within our power, as parliamentarians, to do something about it, at least by putting a strategy in place or by beefing up the ones that we already have? When the current UK-wide strategy ends, it will perhaps be time to do something more.
I live the life, as do many others, of testing my blood every day, of feeling unwell when my blood sugar is out of control and of worrying that the next visit to the doctor will bring worse news, which can be the case if we do not discipline ourselves and ensure that we do things right. That is not the life that I want to have, or the life that I want my family, friends or constituents to have. The way to take on the issue is to continue with the UK-wide strategy, with dedicated funding and with all the regions working together, which will save money in the long run and, more importantly, improve the quality of lives across the United Kingdom.
I urge the Minister to take the initiative. I believe that she will and that her response will be very positive, because she understands the issues. I urge her to work with the devolved bodies, in coming together to disarm the ticking time bomb of diabetes—the cost of which some people indicate will be £10 billion—before it explodes. Type 2 diabetes is preventable, and we must do all that we can to prevent it. Education, with attention paid by everyone in this Parliament and the regional assemblies, is the way to do that.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—in any case, I will make just a few remarks. I pay tribute to his efforts in the House of Commons in this area, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders).
I am provoked to make a few remarks by things that other hon. Members have said. I think that we all recognise that diabetes is a major problem. Rates are increasing—it is almost a worldwide epidemic—and it is a killer, linked to a series of other sorts of organ failure. We all recognise and it has been clearly stated that type 2 diabetes is rampant in our society and is lifestyle-related. Diagnosis is important, but I got the sense that that is fundamentally not the problem. We can get diagnosis right. There are clearly failures in general practice, in not picking up the condition early enough, but we do tend to find out who has it and who does not.
The issue appears to be treatment, as has been phrased by most Members. From events that I have attended from time to time in the House, I am aware that the treatment of diabetes is becoming increasingly sophisticated. A series of technology is attached to that nowadays, and we also have the advent of telehealth. All the major practitioners of telehealth are keen to provide better services for diabetics.
Additionally, there is the expert patient initiative, about which I was slightly sceptical when it was launched. The initiative is becoming very effective in connection to diabetes. The charities are playing along with that, too. A lot of good things are going on, but we are recording a variation in practice. There is something of a postcode lottery. I wonder what will prevent that. In which direction will we go?
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay voiced concerns about the future of NHS Diabetes, but, like the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), I wonder how that will play into the new system. There seem to be two ways in which things could go. Without the local primary care trust, there may be, temporarily at any rate, an absence of leadership, because one of the PCTs’ jobs was to manage GPs, to keep them up to the mark and to assess how well they were performing. Clearly, part of the problem that we are addressing today is the failure of GPs, first, to diagnose diabetes early enough and, secondly, to treat it as effectively as they might. It is a fact that, although they are slow to admit it, GP practices in this country can be something of a lottery; they are extraordinarily variable in quality and character. Such features may be more manifest in the new structure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay sketched a more optimistic scenario, however, in which the health and wellbeing boards will become ever more vigilant and keep GPs up to the mark. GPs themselves have suggested to me that one of the best ways to produce good and more standardised practice is peer review, with every GP knowing what other GPs are doing.
I am not sure which of those two outcomes is more likely, but there is great concern that the Department of Health ensures that the right one results.
I am uncomfortable with the thought, as raised by several Members today, that we could simply impose targets and that that would somehow get things right. The hon. Member for West Lancashire and I attended a debate not 24 hours ago on the Liverpool care pathway, in which we considered the corrosive and dysfunctional effects of targets. Once targets are set, we do not always get the results that we want. What, for example, would a target to reduce amputations do? Would it mean people do not do amputations in circumstances where an amputation might be desirable for the patient?
We come back to the perennial dilemma of many of our debates, particularly on specialist conditions, in that we can identify good practice—we can see it, and we miss it when it does not occur—but the national health service has never successfully found the secret of spreading good practice fast enough, which is happening again with diabetes.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). I am tempted just to say that I agree with everything that everyone has said and then to sit down, but this would not be Parliament if we were able to do that, so I will briefly contribute to the debate.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who has dedicated his life in Parliament to addressing diabetes. Obviously, because he has type 1 diabetes, he has become the Commons expert on such matters, and I pay tribute to him for what he has done as chair of the all-party group on diabetes and for all his other work on diabetes.
I come to debates on diabetes as a type 2 sufferer full of optimism, because I want to hear about what other people are doing, but I hear about blindness, amputations, stroke and death, and I feel extremely depressed as I go out. In this debate, hon. Members have talked about amazing ideas and good practice in their own areas. I did not know about the specialist unit in Blaenau Gwent, and I did not know what a bun worry is—I now discover that it is a feast of sweets held in Northern Ireland, from which I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is kept away. The key to such debates is that we hear about good practice that we do not hear about in other areas.
I pay tribute to both Front-Bench teams, because they both understand the importance of the subject. I am sorry that I did not get diabetes earlier, because I would have done better at harassing the previous Labour Government on the issue. I was told that I had diabetes only in 2007, and, therefore, I did not dedicate myself to it in Parliament in the way that I should. I will make up for that in the next few years.
We have high hopes for the Minister, and not only because The Times has said that she is one of the rising stars of the new intake, which gives hope to those of us who have reached middle age—I am on the way down, but she is clearly on the way up. We have confidence in her and the way in which she has addressed diabetes in the Department of Health: she has ensured that diabetes is a priority; she has asked questions of the experts, and she has brought together charities such as Diabetes UK, Silver Star and others. She is doing what all good Ministers do, which is never to accept the status quo and to ensure that the Department’s bright civil servants are using their abilities and skills to deliver what Parliament wants.
I welcome what the Government have done to support the Change4Life initiative by backing the advertisements announced only on Monday to encourage people to address obesity by ensuring that they change their diet and understand that, by taking responsibility, there can be a difference. I know it is in the nature of parliamentarians always to blame the Government or to expect the Government to do more, and, yes, we do, but it is also in the hands of individuals.
The hon. Member for Strangford carefully considers what he eats in the Tea Room—I have watched him carefully as we line up to get our lunches. When we go to the Tea Room to get a cup of tea before Prime Minister’s questions, we are faced with Club biscuits, Kit Kats and every sweet thing that can possibly be found. I do not know what the English equivalent of a bun worry is, but it is there for us in the Tea Room. Let us start in this House by ensuring that the food available is acceptable.
I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for the work that she and the Labour Front-Bench team have done on the proposals not for a tax, which was the subject of my ten-minute rule Bill, but for a reduction in the sugar and salt content of foods, as announced by the shadow Secretary of State. That is a good thing and goes some way towards what Mayor Bloomberg is doing in New York. Actually, the proposal goes further—a tax was not proposed because, of course, Denmark introduced a fat tax but had to withdraw it because of lobbying from the food industry—by showing the need to do something now. The Secretary of State was on television on Sunday, and he agrees with the principles behind the proposal, although he does not support the idea of doing it through legislation. He was looking very cool, not in a suit and tie but in his cardigan, and he said, “Let’s leave it for the industry to do on a voluntary basis.” The industry has had its chance to do something, and we need to move forward.
The Opposition are right. I know that it is in the Opposition’s nature to say radical things, but they are right to press the Government on the proposal because it means that the clever civil servants and, indeed, the clever Ministers in the Department of Health, including the Minister with responsibility for diabetes, will take note and press the industry to react. Ultimately, being able to express such views is important, and I support what the Opposition are trying to do.
I have not mentioned this so far—Members of Parliament usually criticise GPs for not doing enough, and they do not do enough—but in the five or 10 minutes available when people go to their GP, there is not enough time to have a diabetes test and a long chat about diabetes issues. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) specifically mentioned the south Asian community—the Silver Star diabetes charity, with which I am associated, and Diabetes UK take this seriously—because certain communities are more susceptible to diabetes. He is right to raise that point. However, I think we should be getting pharmacists to do much more. Before she died of diabetes complications, my mum had great faith in her local pharmacist. Pharmacists have more time to talk to people than GPs, who are very busy. We should include them in our forward plans. We have not mentioned them today, but we need to consider them for the future.
I know that the Minister is off to India to speak at a major conference on the issue in Chennai. We have the best diabetes doctors in the world. I happen to have a few in Leicester—Professor Azhar Farooqi, Professor Kamlesh Khunti, Professor Melanie Davies—and there is also Professor Naveed Sattar in Glasgow, as well as many others. They are world-class experts, and we do not use them enough. As the Minister starts on her journey—not quite without maps, because some have been provided in this debate, and the hon. Member for Torbay has one in his back pocket that he has offered to successive Governments over the past 25 years—will she please use the expertise that we have? The world looks to our medical profession as the best in the world. Let us engage them in the work that we do.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this debate. I am struggling with the aftermath of a new year flu, so I hope that my voice will hold out.
I should declare an interest: I have been diagnosed as a type 2 diabetic. As always, I follow humbly in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz); I have spent 25 years doing that. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition about diabetes, one of the leading health threats in the UK. As we have heard, there are 3.7 million people in this country living with the disease. As we have also heard, it is a particular issue for people of south Asian and African and Caribbean descent in our big cities. I am hopeful that one thing that will emerge from the changes to the NHS is more local targeting, both by clinical commissioning groups and in public health, of local issues and local demographics. We cannot engage with diabetes unless we also engage with local specifics in our cities and regions.
As we have heard, diabetes costs the NHS one tenth of its budget—more than £10 billion a year. We have heard in detail about foot care and amputations, but the general problem is that diabetes is a gateway condition to hypertension, stroke, kidney problems and amputations, leading to early death. I was struck by the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) of 23 amputations in Blaenau Gwent. It makes one stop to think about the human reality of diabetes in communities.
The fact that diabetes is a gateway condition makes early diagnosis and engagement so important. It is important to be mindful of the new NHS architecture. It is not just a question of asking Ministers to do more; we must also take the debate to a local level, with CCGs and directors of public health, because healthy living issues will fall to directors of public health and local authorities, rather than Government, to deliver. We can also look to local authorities that have been innovative about healthy living issues by offering free swimming lessons and so on.
We have heard about the basic health service treatments and checks that people should have. The Minister will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee’s report was critical of the management of adult diabetic services in the NHS. The report said that every year, 24,000 people with diabetes die simply because their disease has not been effectively managed. That is not a satisfactory figure in the 21st century for one of the world’s leading economies. Although people now know what needs to be done for people with diabetes, the Public Accounts Committee found that progress in delivering the recommended standards of care and achieving treatment targets has been depressingly poor.
What is the Department’s response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report? What can the Minister tell us about improvements in policy and service in line with the Committee’s recommendations? Does the Department of Health have a plan for ensuring the effective implementation of the NHS health check programme after the NHS reorganisation in April?
I would also like to say a word about children and young people with diabetes. As many as one in four young people are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The UK has the highest number of children diagnosed with diabetes in Europe and, sadly, the lowest number of children attaining good diabetes control. Christine Cottrell, a diabetes nurse specialist from Warwick, told The Daily Telegraph last July:
“We are even getting children as young as seven with Type 2 diabetes”.
It is an important public health issue, and the prognosis is not good:
“These children end up having heart attacks, or losing a limb, or their sight, in their 30s and 40s.”
I know that it is difficult in a Westminster Hall debate to bring up issues that cut across Departments, but has the Minister had discussions with her colleagues in the Department for Education about what support could be offered to schoolchildren and young people to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent the development of early complications? What efforts are being made to ensure that both staff and pupils are aware of the nature of diabetic epileptic attacks, which can take place in schools, and the best way to assist sufferers in an emergency?
What steps are the Government taking to increase the number of people not previously diagnosed with diabetes who receive diabetes testing? What was said earlier about the role of pharmacists was an interesting suggestion. Do the Government have a plan in place to make the public aware of the symptoms of diabetes sufferers? Are there any plans for a nationwide public awareness campaign? On prevention, we know that the new NHS commissioning board will be mandated to prevent diabetes. I know that it is perhaps not reasonable to say that GPs do not perform things that are not targeted exactly as well as things that are, but is the Department considering introducing diabetes testing targets for GPs?
The Public Accounts Committee inquiry to which I referred earlier heard that out of 20 trusts that needed to improve their diabetes care, only three accepted the offered help. That is not reassuring. How can the Minister ensure that care through health providers meets the targets set by the Secretary of State? As clinical commissioning groups and directors of public health take over some of those responsibilities, what can the Department do to ensure that diabetes is on their agenda?
On some of the more general issues around diet and healthy eating, although diabetes management, foot care and preventing diabetes from becoming a gateway to even more serious conditions are important, the most important thing that we can do in medical and public health terms is consider diet and healthy eating and other prevention matters, particularly for young people. Most experts agree that the excessive consumption of sugar is a factor in both obesity and diabetes. Increasingly, people are saying that sugar is addictive.
Colleagues have mentioned some important things to engage with in terms of policy, such as minimum pricing for alcohol, about which the Government are consulting and which is supported by Opposition Members. We suggest looking at the sugar composition of some foods, particularly those targeted at children. Most parents want to do their best, and I hope that the advertising campaign launched by the Minister will shed some light on such issues for parents. However, how many parents know that Coco Pops are one third sugar? People joke about it, but although most parents would not sit their child down to breakfast and put a bar of chocolate in front of them, they will give them a bowl of Frosties or some children’s cereal, which can have a higher proportion of sugar than a bar of chocolate. Opposition Members are saying that we need to consider legislating to ensure that the proportion of sugar in some foods that are directly targeted at children can be brought down.
I am glad to advance Her Majesty’s Opposition’s position on diabetes. I congratulate the Government on what they have done up until now, but there is more to be done, both in locking in a concern for diabetes locally when clinical commissioning groups and directors of public health take up their new responsibilities and dealing with the broader issues of healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle and the preponderance of sugar in modern processed food.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) for securing this debate and to every hon. Member who has spoken. As you may have gathered, Mr Crausby—and as those hon. Members who have heard or will hear or read about the debate will gather—this is a huge topic. We could have had a 90-minute debate simply on diabetes 1 and diabetes 2. We could have other debates about the causes of diabetes 2. I am the first to put my hands up and admit that, until I was lucky and fortunate enough to be appointed last September to the position that I hold, I did not know a great deal about diabetes, but, goodness me, I have learned a great deal in the months since my appointment. I thank the all-party group on diabetes, chaired by my hon. Friend, for all the great work that it does. I paid the APPG a flying visit and learned a lot; a number of matters were raised with me that caused me great concern.
I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Crausby, if this sounds like a mutual admiration society, because in many ways it is. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and I go back many years. I pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done. I know about his Silver Star charity and I look forward to its coming to Beeston in my constituency and to the van doing some work there. That highlights one thing that has come out of this debate and goes to the heart of the Government’s reforms of the NHS: the remarkable work that can be done and now has to be done locally to ensure that we improve the diagnoses and treatments—in addition to other matters raised by hon. Members—because it is fair to say that, although many localities share common themes, this disease will be more prevalent in certain communities, even down to ward level. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) raises concerns and, as ever, ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay makes a good point about how we can ensure that these improvements are delivered locally.
I pay tribute not only to the work of Silver Star, but to Diabetes UK, which must be an outstanding charity, because such was its ability to campaign on this issue that it persuaded Mr Paul Dawson, a constituent of mine who has suffered from diabetes 1 for many years, to visit me on Friday. I thought that that was just a remarkable coincidence, but he told me that Diabetes UK suggested that he visit me. The serious point is that he raised concerns, as a sufferer of diabetes 1, that I had heard at the APPG, so I had already taken up many of those, notably what seems to be a rationing of strips. Frankly, this is bonkers; people with diabetes who use strips need to use them and often need to use many in a day. I am not happy if there is any form of rationing of those strips. I have already met officers in the Department and inquiries are being made of primary care trusts, and beyond. Mr Dawson also told me about the great advances, which I have already alluded to, that have been made in medicine, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and others have mentioned.
I have been asked a number of questions and I cannot answer them all in the short time available, but I undertake to answer every question in letters.
Anna Soubry
I am concerned about it. It is unacceptable. I have already held a meeting with my officials and they are making further inquiries. I discussed with Mr Dawson what was happening locally in CCGs, which is where this will make a difference, when we see the power of our doctors and other health professionals to commission services, and the power and influence that patients and sufferers of diabetes will have. I am told that NHS Diabetes has now identified a diabetic lead in every CCG. There is an opportunity, through the reforms, to ensure that we now deliver locally as we should. All hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have identified a failure in respect of good outcomes and good practice throughout the NHS, right through to local level. That needs to be, and is being, addressed as a matter of urgency.
I have been alerted to problems with glucose meters and pumps—various new advances in technology. Some of this excites me. However, I am still concerned if there is not the availability that there should be, right across the NHS, notably for all sufferers of diabetes 1.
Jim Shannon
It is not just about the provision of the insulin pumps; it is also about training. There are two facets to that.
Anna Soubry
Indeed. I was going to end this part of my speech by saying that my constituent, Mr Dawson, paid tribute to what he described as his brilliant diabetic nurse at the Queen’s medical centre in Nottingham. He highlighted, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that it is all well and good having wonderful, great technology, but if people have access to it they need, critically, the support to be able to use it themselves. We must ensure that they have the highest-quality support, not just from their GPs, but from diabetic nurses and others who are trained and specialise in this condition.
Diabetes is common and is increasing, as hon. Members have mentioned. It is estimated that, by 2025, 4 million people will have diabetes.
Nick Smith
What are the Minister’s views of Mayor Bloomberg’s plan in New York to ban super-sized soft drinks in cinemas? Does she agree that that could be a good symbolic action that would help bring down diabetes?
Anna Soubry
It could be, but I make it clear, as I said on Monday in various media interviews, that at the moment the responsibility deal is working, which is why we have some of the lowest salt levels in the world. Other countries are coming to us to find out how we have achieved that by working with industry, retailers and manufacturers to reduce salt levels. On the reduction of trans fats, under 1% of our food now has trans fats in it. Again, we have done that by working with the manufacturers and retailers.
My natural inclination is against legislation, and I say that as an old lawyer. At the moment, I am confident that the responsibility deal is delivering in the way that I want it to. I make it clear that, if there is a need to introduce legislation, we will not hesitate to do that. I am almost firing a warning shot across the bows of the retailers and food manufacturers and saying, “Unless you get your house in order and accept responsibility, we will not hesitate to introduce legislation or regulation, because we know that we in this country have an unacceptable rise in obesity, to levels that are second only to those in America.” I will therefore consider everything. I always have an open mind. I am currently content, however, that the responsibility deal is delivering, but it has a great deal more to do. I hope that those who are signed up to the calorie reduction scheme later this month will encourage more manufacturers and retailers to sign up to the responsibility deal on calories. I want to ensure that we make some real, serious and tangible progress.
Ultimately, however, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) identified, the responsibility is ours. Nobody forces us to eat the sugar buns or whatever it may be. When we go into the Tea Room and we are faced with the choice between fruit or a piece of cake, my natural inclination might be for a piece of cake, especially since I have developed a sweeter tooth as I have got older and since I have stopped smoking. We all make the choice whether to eat a piece of cake. The ultimate responsibility lies with us as individuals and as parents, but I always have an open mind.
Diabetes is a growing problem and a major factor in premature mortality with an estimated 24,000 avoidable deaths a year—10% of deaths annually are in people with diabetes. A variation exists in the delivery of the nine care processes, with a range of 15.9% to 71.2% achievement across PCTs, which is not acceptable. However, 75% of diabetes sufferers receive eight out of the nine care processes, which is a huge improvement. In 2003-04, only 7% of sufferers received all nine care processes. In 2010-11, that figure was at 54.3%, but there is much more to be done. In the coming months, several documents will be published to guide the NHS in delivering improved diabetes care, including the response to the Public Accounts Committee report, the work undertaken on diabetes as a long-term condition and the cardiovascular disease outcome strategy.
We must ensure that people get an early diagnosis. I must commend again the work of Diabetes UK. Other hon. Members have mentioned how it is raising awareness of the early signs and symptoms of diabetes with its latest campaign on the 4 Ts, which has my full support. One in every two people diagnosed with diabetes already has complications. I thank the hon. Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for their contributions. I will not be able to answer their points specifically in my speech, but I hear what they say and will write to them if necessary to answer their questions. I am acutely aware of the complications and the devastating effects that those can have on people’s lives.
Mr Sanders
Can the Minister respond to the important point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about pharmacists? Some private pharmacy groups offer diabetes tests, which other pharmacies should be encouraged to do. I hope that we can see the roll-out of more collaborative working between the private sector and the health service in order to identify people with diabetes, so that they start to get treated.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for that intervention not only because I was coughing but, most importantly, because I was going to mention that subject only in passing. I will now expand on that a little. I absolutely agree with the points of my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Leicester East about the importance of pharmacies. They are important for so much of the NHS’s work, but here is a good example of where we can link them in far more with delivering the successes, outcomes and diagnoses that we need so desperately. There is absolutely a role for pharmacies, and I look forward to clinical commissioning groups, which are already thinking in new ways about how to deliver better health care at a local level and working in exciting and imaginative ways, collaborating with pharmacies far more than has been done before. It is a good point, and I hope to see more action on it.
When people get a diagnosis, we need to ensure they are managed according to the latest clinical guidelines. The quality and outcomes framework, introduced in 2003-04, has incentivised primary care to perform the nine care processes for people with diabetes, but we know that there are difficulties—I have given the figures—and not enough people are receiving all nine. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has been asked to review the quality and outcomes framework and diabetes indicators, and we await its response and findings.
Last year, the National Audit Office reviewed the management of adult diabetes services in the NHS. While that highlighted the progress made over the past 10 years, it also highlighted the unwarranted variation that exists across the NHS and the significant challenges that we face over the next 10 years. There is no excuse for poor diabetes care. No one with diabetes should lose a leg or their vision if it can be prevented. We know what needs to be done and we need to ensure that we meet the challenge head on.
The prime objective of the NHS Commissioning Board will be to drive improvement in the quality of NHS services, and we will hold it to account for that through the NHS mandate, which makes it clear that we expect to see significant improvement in the outcomes, diagnosis and treatment of diabetes. In addition, through the NHS outcomes framework, we will be able to track the overall progress of the NHS on delivering improved health and outcomes. Diabetes is relevant to all five domains in the outcomes framework, so when work programmes are developed it is important to consider diabetes and how optimising care can deliver improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked specifically about NHS Diabetes and whether it will continue to play a central role. NHS Diabetes is one of six current improvement organisations that are being replaced by the new NHS improvement body in the NHS Commissioning Board. In the overall context of what I have said, I hope that he will take comfort, will believe and be sure that diabetes is something that the NHS Commissioning Board has put much higher up its list of priorities. It is aware that much more needs to be done and is the ultimate driver of all of that.
Many hon. Members have mentioned diabetes 2, which is largely, but not always, a preventable disease. I have already paid tribute to those hon. Members who have raised the issue both in their local communities and nationally.
I want to end my comments by discussing an undoubtedly serious problem in our society, which is that almost all of us eat too much. We are overweight. Some 60% of adults are either overweight or obese. As a society, we find ourselves in a situation where one third of our 11-year-olds—our year 6 pupils—are either overweight or obese when they leave primary school. Those figures should truly shock each and every one of us, and something can be done about the problem. We can all take responsibility for how we feed our children and for our own lives and diets and what we eat and drink. The Government, however, can also do things, especially at a local level. When health and wellbeing boards identify the needs of their communities, if it is not a unitary authority, they can work with borough councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made a good point about leisure services. We are already seeing evidence in shadow form. In my constituency, GPs are issuing prescriptions for activity, and the borough council is offering real assistance. It is almost as if there are no excuses not to go along to the various leisure centres and take up a class or gentle exercise. We even have walking football in Broxtowe. The point of all this is that local authorities are beginning to knit together all the various services to ensure that we all live longer, healthier and happier lives. The ultimate responsibility is ours, but local and national Government can do so much. It is all coming down to a local level. When we see the roll-out in the spring, I am confident that we will see great progress.
Local Government (Leadership)
(11 years, 4 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
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship today. I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chamber leadership in local government and to debate it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will want to contribute. A debate on leadership in councils could last for days. Many people will have many different views on leadership, good and bad, and on what is happening in councils today. However, the purpose of the debate is to consider one narrow point: leadership in councils.
When I became an MP in 2010, I visited organisations in my constituency, as did many of my colleagues in their constituencies. Some of those organisations are in the private sector, and many are large and small businesses. The key issue that struck me, having visited both private and public sector organisations and institutions, was leadership and management. My general observation was that if an organisation has one or the other—leadership or management—it can function reasonably well. If it has neither, clearly it is likely to run into difficulties. If an organisation, whether in the public or private sector, has both, it tends to be a great success, and I am aware of those in my constituency that have good leadership and good management, and are doing a terrific job.
Some local businesses are successful, and some public organisations are able and perform well. However, there is a subtle difference between the private and public sectors. If private sector organisations do not have good management and leadership, they run into difficulty and will either go bust or be taken over by another organisation. The difficulty is that, if they cannot be suddenly taken over or cannot go bust, there is a danger that they may become weak and ineffective. The importance of leadership and management should not be underestimated, and the difficulty for Governments of all political persuasions is how to deal with underperforming public bodies. Obvious examples are schools and hospitals. How can they be dealt with when they begin to fail because they have not been provided with correct leadership or good management? That is an issue for all Governments.
A key organisation that has an important bearing in all our constituencies is local government. Local authorities are subtly different from other public sector organisations because they are elected, and the beauty of elections is that they provide new leadership and new emphasis and direction. A mechanism exists for change.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that, in these difficult economic times, strong leadership is vital in local government, and will he join me in congratulating Adrian Hardman, leader of Worcestershire county council, which was ranked the third highest performing council in the country, despite being the third lowest funded?
John Stevenson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that that is a prime example of good leadership in local government, and I will touch on that.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has raised the matter of strong leadership in many debates, and I also congratulate him on that. Does he agree that unitary authorities, which have a cabinet-style model of leadership, provide the best form of local government in terms of value for money? Medway council, on which I still serve—I was a cabinet member—is led by Councillor Chambers and has been rated as providing good value for services.
John Stevenson
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and we could have a separate debate on unitary councils alone. For the record, I wholeheartedly agree that unitary councils are the correct direction for local government, and I will certainly advocate that when I can.
Leadership and management in councils are central to the economic success not only of individual communities and local authorities, but of the wider economy and the whole country. They are also important for the provision of efficient and well-delivered services, which may range from collecting waste to social care. We have a tendency in this country to underestimate the importance of local government. It is extremely important and should play a much bigger role in our national affairs. It is commonly accepted, probably across the political spectrum, that the country is far too centralised. Direction and instructions come from the centre and tell local government what it should do.
I accept that the Government have tried to redress the balance. I fully support what they are doing, and I would encourage them to go further. I give them credit for the work that they have done, and I fully support them in their direction of travel. However, there are cultural barriers. At the centre, Whitehall thinks it knows best, and likes to tell local authorities so. In turn, there is a failing at town hall level. Town halls are not used to taking the initiative or providing distinct local leadership. That should change, which is why I am concentrating on local leadership.
The present regime includes many able and effective leaders—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) indicated that she has an able and effective county council leader—but we must accept that there are many ineffective councils with poor leadership and management, although some have difficulties because they must often deal with the machinations of local politics. Some parts of the country are effectively a one-party state. That may not be healthy for democracy, and it creates problems because of internal squabbles within political parties. In hung councils, parties compete for political leadership, and the most able people often do not lead the council because of inter-party debates and tensions. We cannot get away from the fact that some places have poor-quality councillors, and that the job does not attract the most able people. That is an issue for us all across the political spectrum.
What are the solutions? I believe that we should have more elected mayors. Do people know who their council leader is? I went along to a sixth-form school in my constituency and talked to 50 or 60 able students who were all interested in local affairs. My first question was whether any of them could name their local council leader. My second question was whether any of them could name their county council leader. Not one of them could name either, but if the same questions were asked in London and some other parts of the country with elected mayors, I suspect that at least a good proportion could name that person.
Elected mayors provide visible and clear leadership, which is transparent and accountable. People know who is in charge and responsible for local affairs. They have a four-year mandate, and they have the opportunity to carry out their manifesto commitments and to implement policy. They also provide democratic accountability, which is important. There are one-party councils throughout the country, and the introduction of an elected mayor would add a different dynamism to such areas. Independents could be elected, and a party that will never be in control of a council would have a chance to have their political views expressed through the elected mayor.
The Government have taken a top-down approach to date. After the election, they were committed to the introduction of elected mayors in 12 of our largest cities. From my perspective, I was very disappointed that they were rejected in nine of the areas where there was a referendum. Nevertheless, out of those 12 large cities, three have gone down the road of having an elected mayor. That is a 25% success rate. My view, therefore, is that we should try a bottom-up approach, by encouraging local communities to take the initiative, rather than imposing it on them.
Referendums have been held up and down the country for elected mayors, promoted by local initiatives. The success rate has again been around 25%. Some people would say that that is a poor result and that the policy is a failure, but we have to look at the nature of referendums. As a general rule in referendums, people tend to stay with the status quo. We see that time and again in this country, and certainly in other parts of the world. There is an inherent conservatism within the electorate to remain with what they know, rather than taking on something different.
Local referendums have been hindered to a large extent—dare I say?—by the self-interest of local councillors and local organisations, such as councils themselves, which have been reluctant to see elected mayors being introduced. I believe, however, that support for them is widespread and much deeper than we think. Yesterday, I was at a meeting with Lord Heseltine, interestingly enough, who is not only a big enthusiast of unitary authorities, but a strong supporter of elected mayors. He in turn has been greatly supported by Lord Adonis, who is also a great fan and supporter of them. Both believe that elected mayors are the future drivers of success in local government.
How will we achieve that bottom-up approach? We could look at the legislation. At present, legislation lays out certain criteria before the role of a mayor can come into effect. As everyone will know, there is a petition, then a referendum, and only on the success of a referendum is the structure changed. The key for any area is getting a valid petition to initiate such a referendum. At present, the requirement is 5% of the electorate, which is a barrier that, in my view, is far too high. To take my area as an example, for Carlisle district council, a petition requires 4,500 signatures, while 20,000 signatures are required for Cumbria county council. I suspect that the figures would be much higher in other areas, as ours is sparsely populated. I genuinely believe that the number is prohibitively high—5% is far too high.
What is the goal? I would like the leadership of local authorities to become more open, more accountable and far more dynamic. They should be able to provide innovation, with new ideas, and bring in a real period of local government, by taking the lead and producing political leaders who are known, respected and make a contribution to their local areas.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated so far on local political leadership, making comments that apply to all political parties, and I very much endorse some of what has been said. However, the flipside is that, over the past few years, we have seen a contraction in the size of local government, especially smaller district and borough councils, and with that, we have experienced highly skilled chief executives leaving the sector. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that leadership gap has seen officers over-promoted, which has been to the detriment of council tax payers and the standard of service that they receive? I agree that we should move towards unitary authorities, but it is not a one-horse race. We need both components, with really good, on-the-ball chief executives. I would probably say that I agree that unitary authorities are the way to go, but with ever smaller services and good people moving, just filling the gap will not do.
John Stevenson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I go back to my initial comments when I mentioned leadership and management, because the two go hand in hand to a certain extent. With local authorities or any organisation, whether private or public, if the two go together, the organisation ends up being fantastic. When there is only one, it can work, but it is more problematic. When there is neither, it is a problem.
Rosie Cooper
I wonder whether the chief executive mentioned by the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) would like a free transfer.
John Stevenson
What the hon. Lady said is absolutely right, and I am concentrating principally today on leadership and political leadership. However, we could have a debate just on the management—let alone the leadership and the management—at a future date.
My view is that elected mayors are the way to help achieve real leadership in local government. We should let communities up and down the country decide whether an elected mayor is right for them, and we should make it easier to allow petitions to succeed. Does the Minister agree that leadership is vital to the success of councils? Does he support, as the Prime Minister does, the idea and concept of elected mayors, and would he like to see them spread across the country? Would he assist in making it easier to initiate such referendums?
My real question for the Minister is how we achieve that. I would like—I am interested to hear his comments—a reduction in the required percentage of local people who need to sign the petition from 5% to 1%. The previous Government contemplated lowering the threshold. Going back to my example of Carlisle, if the threshold were reduced to 1%, only 800 signatures would be required for the district council, and if I get my maths correct, 4,000 would be needed for the county council. It would then become entirely feasible and people would go out and actively seek signatures. That is my first question for the Minister.
Secondly, does the Minister agree with extending the period that a petitioner who is campaigning for this can use the signatures on the petition from one year to two years? At present, such a person has to use signatures from people who support the petition within a 12-month period. That may seem an awfully long time, but if someone is working full time and doing this on an ad hoc basis, time passes. To get the requisite number of signatures can take time, and in the example of Carlisle, even if the figure drops to 800, it is still a time-consuming business. Will the Minister consider increasing the period to two years?
Finally, in this age of modern technology, it would seem eminently sensible—indeed, people would expect it—for petitions to be online. At present, there has to be a physical signature on a piece of paper. We have lots of ways of dealing with modern communications and how we produce petitions. Doing them online would be an eminently sensible solution, and it would make it easier for people who want to push forward a petition to achieve the requisite numbers.
I might be wrong, but I believe that much of that could be dealt with by delegated legislation, and I hope that the Minister will confirm whether that is the case. I genuinely think that this is an opportunity to transform local leadership in local councils. In turn, I believe that it would transform the performance of local councils, benefiting local communities and the country at large. It would help growth in our communities, and I believe that it would help to vindicate the Government’s localism agenda. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I will allow one short contribution before the Minister responds.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate.
I served as a councillor for 26 years, with 14 of those on a district authority, which was then transformed into a unitary authority. I entirely concur with previous comments that unitary authorities are the way forward, and I would like to see the Government make more positive moves in the right direction. I also entirely agree that it is desirable for those authorities to be led by an elected mayor. Mayoral positions attract those who have not previously been drawn into local politics. That is good, because it enlarges the pool of talent that is available, and it provides necessary links between business and politics. In the short time available, I want to add one or two points to what my hon. Friend has said.
In Lord Heseltine’s excellent report, he talks considerably about a sense of place and local identities. I know that the Government, like the previous Administration, are drawn to city regions and the boost to a local economy that they can give, and they are even, I believe, considering the possibility of elected mayors for those regions. Although I support that, the city region itself must have a sense of place. My area of Humberside most certainly does not. I, and many others, spent 20 years of our political lives fighting the previously imposed county of Humberside. There must be a clear sense of identity.
We can move on from the lost mayoral referendums of last year. I hope that areas such as my own in north-east Lincolnshire can steal a march on the cities that rejected mayors by grasping the nettle, moving forward and going for an elected mayor themselves. That is why I very much support my hon. Friend’s comments that we must bypass local councils and local councillors, who are a blockade to that; for various reasons, they oppose it. Therefore, I would very much support moves to reduce the threshold and give local activists and local people opportunities to move forward in that direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing the debate and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to air a hugely important issue. I join colleagues who have congratulated him not just on today’s debate, but on the way he has brought up the topic over the past few years. It is a key issue. He is right about that. Effective local leadership is vital and possibly more important today than it has ever been. Up and down the country, areas face huge challenges in local government. Service delivery is becoming increasingly complex. An ageing population presents areas with real challenges. Efficiency savings are required. Partnership working needs good, strong, clear leadership. Another challenge involves community engagement, particularly now that we are in a social media-led environment. I shall come back in a few moments to my hon. Friend’s comments on digital issues.
We face real challenges, particularly in ensuring economic growth. We believe that the best way to do that is for it to be driven locally. The key to dealing with those challenges comes from our towns and cities. It is about strong, inspirational leadership that can take the challenges on, and not just see them as challenges but make them into opportunities.
I disagree to an extent with the comments of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) about the leadership gap when we lose chief executives. We need to be clear that in some areas and particularly some small districts, the days of big, expensive, silo management teams are gone. Just financially, they are history. People have to work together and share good chief executives to get the good management that has been commented on. I agree with the hon. Lady that good political leadership, with good management, gives that magic option, but I have to make it clear that my view is very much that the leadership of a council for an area should come from the political leaders. If we go down the road of saying that a chief executive is part of the leadership, that can only be because our councillors are not doing their job. Our councillors are there to make decisions, to deliver, to lead and to represent their community. Our officers are there to give good advice and to implement the decisions made by councillors.
The comment about directly elected mayors, which I will come to in a second, highlights the importance of leadership from the political leaders. We must never underestimate that, and we must congratulate those leaders throughout the country who put so much time and effort into their communities. Actually, that applies to all councillors, but I am thinking particularly of the leaders who step to the forefront, take that leadership seriously and move their communities forward. Whether they are mayors or just elected leaders, they do all our communities and our country a great service.
Cities are a good example of where the Government are recognising this leadership. Our belief in strong local leadership has meant that it is one of the asks for the city deals. We have made it clear that if cities want significant new powers and funding streams, they need to demonstrate clear, strong, accountable leadership. Cities with directly elected mayors have clearly shown that.
Several hon. Members have spoken in favour of mayors. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has regularly made comments about directly elected mayors. Particularly in the case of single-tier authorities, they can be a hugely beneficial step forward, with real power and real ability to deliver on the ground for their communities. I share my hon. Friend’s view—I can answer that question directly—that it would be good to see more of them around the country. I am interested in looking at how we can motivate people and encourage more of that to happen. I shall come to my hon. Friend’s three specific asks in a moment.
I am pleased that we are at one on this particular issue. Directly elected mayors can and generally do provide good, strong, clear and visible local leadership. My hon. Friend highlighted that very well in his description of the meeting at the school. He makes a very strong point about the accountability of the role of mayor. A directly elected mayor does seem to have recognition in a community that goes beyond that of an elected councillor. There is, therefore, increased—clear—accountability. People understand exactly who is in charge, who is making the decisions, who is accountable. That transparency fits perfectly with the localism agenda with which we are moving forward.
There is a very strong case on this issue. Research undertaken in 2005 shows that the democratic mandate provided by directly elected mayors has
“provided a basis for a stronger, more proactive style of leadership than other models.”
We have seen how mayors around the world have reinvigorated their cities. I am thinking of places such as Frankfurt, New York and Lyon. That has also been the case on our own doorstep, in London. The mayors—the office holders—become very well known. That highlights again the clear accountability and understanding of who is responsible—who is in charge. The Mayor of London, particularly, I would say, over the past four years, has transformed the city. In the 12 years of its existence, the London mayoral office has been hailed across the world for its influence in raising the profile of the capital and for securing major projects that the city needs, from Crossrail to the Olympic games.
Of course, in addition to the Mayor of London, we now have, as my hon. Friend said, new mayors in three of our biggest cities: Leicester, Liverpool and, most recently, Bristol; I have already met the mayor of Bristol a few times. In our “Mid-Term Review”, published on Monday, hon. Members have seen that we are proud to record that we have enabled the people of those cities to join London in choosing a directly elected mayor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has outlined a number of measures that he feels would make it easier for communities to bring about mayoral governance in their area and to see that happen from the local community up, rather than central Government deciding that an area should have a referendum. I am attracted to any measures that will allow areas to adopt good, strong, effective leadership, which an elected mayor can provide and which is vital to their success.
Let me deal with my hon. Friend’s three points directly. The first concerns the petition for governance and the idea of a change in the threshold. He is right to say that we can change that by amending existing secondary legislation, so it is not difficult to do. I shall do some further work and invite my hon. Friend to come and have a conversation with the Department about that. I am cautious about it, but I am open-minded. Let me explain why I feel some caution about it. We want to make it easy for people, when there is a genuine need and desire in a community to see clear accountable leadership, to move forward and have a vote for it. We also need to avoid small interested parties being able too easily to get something that does not have full community support. There is a balance to find on the size—the proposal is to move from 5% to 1%—and the implication that that would have in different areas. As my hon. Friend says, having to find 20,000 votes is different from having to find 1,000 votes. That depends on whether it is happening at the level of a small authority, county level or whatever it happens to be. There is a bit of work to do on that. I am happy to look at it, but I shall work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can come up with something that might deliver what he wants without going too far and getting the wrong result in the wrong areas.
My hon. Friend’s second query was about the time frame for collecting signatures. Again, I am willing to look at that, but I think that it goes in tandem with point one, in that I suspect that if we were looking at a lower threshold, there would be less need to expand the time frame. If we do not lower the threshold, there is a stronger argument for widening the time frame. It is probably one or the other. We can consider those points in tandem. As I said, I shall work with my hon. Friend on that.
With regard to e-petitions, I can be slightly more direct and positive, in that I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think that we are moving towards those days when far more things will be, whether we like it or not, done online. We certainly should be looking at how we can move forward with that. The coalition’s e-petition website has already had 17 million visits, with a total of 36,000 petitions submitted and almost 6.5 million signatures. That equates to roughly 12 people signing up every minute since it came into force. I support my hon. Friend’s suggestion of allowing electors to support a petition online, and we can look at how we deliver that—how we can make it possible. It was a very good point that we should look to move with.
I agree with my hon. Friend that leadership in a local community is vital. We should give great credit to the leaders who provide that around the country for their communities. They do a great job, as do all councillors who go out and work for their communities. Where we can move forward to make that more accountable and more transparent and have clear accountability through directly elected mayors, and where that would be practical for communities and is something that they want, it could be a very good move forward for them. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can deliver that to strengthen our democracy and our local communities.
Living Wage
(11 years, 4 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
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is very welcome to be serving under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I think that this is the first time that I have done so. I thank everyone for attending what I believe is a timely debate.
The campaign for the introduction of a living wage unites many organisations, charities and people in pursuit of social justice. There is a clear moral case for a living wage: as a society, we should ensure that the minimum wage that workers are paid allows them to lead a decent life, a life with dignity, and does not require people to have, as some in my constituency do, two or three jobs to try to make ends meet, leaving them no time for their children or the rest of their family, or to contribute in any other way to society.
At the same time, there is increasing recognition of the business benefits that being a living wage employer can bring. Many living wage employers see it as almost a fair trade mark: it marks them out as separate from other employers and indicates that they are employers of choice. I think that that is very welcome. A living wage employer also attracts better-quality staff and gains a reputation for good corporate social responsibility. Paying the living wage also reduces absenteeism and staff turnover. It is about giving workers the respect and the pay that they deserve for the work that they do.
I am pleased to say that many people are now paying the living wage, including some councils, such as Lewisham council and Birmingham city council, and private sector employers, such as Aviva and my old employer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as KPMG. They have already volunteered to adopt the living wage and, if the press reports from late last year are correct, three Departments are also now considering introducing it. Late last year, Labour said that it was looking at making public sector contracts conditional on workers being paid at least the living wage and possibly naming and shaming companies that pay their workers less. More MPs are also advertising internships that pay the living wage, which is a very welcome development, as we should be leading the way on fair employment practices. We should lead by example. I do not want to be part of an organisation that says, “Do as I say, not as I do.” For that reason, I do not use unpaid interns and always pay interns at least the living wage. I am very pleased that that is now becoming the practice in the House. Those have all been welcome steps towards making the living wage the norm in our labour market and they make the debate particularly timely.
However, there is one angle to the debate about introducing the living wage that I think needs to be given greater consideration and discussed. If one of the large and vastly profitable supermarket chains or fast food chains had their electricity bills paid by the taxpayer or their advertising costs greatly subsidised by the general public—the same general public who purchase goods in their stores and from whom they make their massive profits—we would expect tabloid headlines and a massive public outcry at the unfairness of it. However, week in, week out, such companies get an enormous subsidy to help with one of their major overheads—staffing costs. That is because many employees—often the majority—in these large and successful companies are paid only the minimum wage, and because the current minimum wage is not a living wage, nearly everyone on it has to claim tax credits to be able to make ends meet.
The number of working families receiving tax credits to top up their meagre incomes has risen by 50% since 2003. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report estimates that 3.3 million people now have to claim tax credits to top up their wages because they are on the minimum wage. Those tax credits are funded by the Government—by the taxpayer. That means that the public purse has to subsidise the low-paid employees of many of our household names so that they make their high profits rather than pay their workers a decent wage.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. She will recognise also that there are some supermarkets where the CEO is on 500 times more than the individual on the shop floor. That must be unacceptable if they are not paying a living wage and are expecting the state in effect to pick up the bill.
Teresa Pearce
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I totally agree. When we compare the top and the bottom level of pay, there is often a massive difference. We need to look at getting that balance right. If a company is making that sort of profit, it is inexcusable for it not to pay a decent wage and for the taxpayer to have to subsidise its wage bill.
I am not against tax credits, but I think that more people need to understand that in many sectors the taxpayer is subsidising the wage bill of some of the biggest employers. We need a national living wage to put an end to the deeply unfair situation in which we are all subsidising poverty pay and the profits of large—often global—companies. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently wrote an article about in-work benefits in The Daily Telegraph. He was blaming Labour’s payments to supplement working families’ incomes for the fact that the public finances are at “breaking point”. Although I agree that the Government should not have to subsidise low wages and in effect subsidise the profits of large companies, I disagree that the solution is to cut the only payment standing between many low-paid workers and destitution. There have been many debates in the House, and I am sure that there will be many more, about why the public finances are the way they are. Is it because we have had to bail out the banks? Is it the Government’s politics of austerity? Is it the lack of growth? Whatever side of the argument we are on, I think that we would all agree that it is not the fault of the worker in my local supermarket or the waitress in the pizza restaurant. We are not in this situation because the Government intervened to prop up poverty wages. It is not the fault of tax credits.
Nevertheless, there is some agreement across the parties that the situation needs to change, even if very different solutions are proposed. We could do as the Government plan to do and place a cap of 1% on uprating benefits such as working tax credits, far below predicted inflation, which will tip thousands more families and children into grinding poverty; or we could consider raising the national minimum wage to a level at which the extensive use of working tax credits would not be necessary.
A recent report by the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research estimated that widespread use of a living wage could save the Government £2 billion a year. About £3.6 billion of the extra money paid out in higher wages under a universal living wage would go straight to the Government, in the form of extra income tax and national insurance payments, along with reduced spending on benefits and tax credits for the lowest-paid. As some of those workers would be in the public sector, their wages would cost the Government an extra £1.3 billion. However, that would still leave the Treasury with an extra net income of £2 billion.
The living wage should be adopted sooner rather than later as the national minimum wage. I do not think that it is too much to ask that workers at the bottom of the income ladder should at least be able to make ends meet. A legal minimum living wage is necessary, because although campaigners have been successful in increasing voluntary take-up, the numbers of people affected by what we are discussing are so high that they warrant more drastic action. About 5 million people are paid less than the suggested living wage and 3 million households contain at least one adult who is paid below that level. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that a further 1 million children will fall into relative poverty by 2020, and that prediction was made before last night’s vote. With a living wage, we could at least try to undo some of the damage.
I realise that many people will object to what I am saying. They will say that I am anti-business. I am not, but I am anti-exploitation. If a business depends on cheap labour while making massive profits for its shareholders, there should be a mechanism—I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man to come up with one—whereby the numbers of minimum wage jobs at a profit-making company are reported to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and a levy can be charged via the tax system to refund some of the subsidy. There is an argument for helping small firms or those that provide a necessary public service, but I do not believe that supermarkets and giant retail companies, which are making billions of pounds each year in profits, deserve or warrant state subsidy, because that is what this is.
People will say that I am anti-jobs, but that is nonsense. I ask them to consider the proposition that the next time one of these firms issues a press release saying that it is creating 5,000 jobs, what it really means is that it is creating increased profits while the rest of us pay part of the staffing cost for those 5,000 jobs. If a business is being operated in a modern European democracy, the people working for it and helping it to make that profit should surely earn enough to be able to live in that modern European democracy without relying on state benefits.
People will say that I am anti-free market on the basis that if employers are forced to pay decent wages, they will go out of business, but if we are realistic, we will admit that we do not really have a free market economy when companies need to be subsidised by the benefits system, when institutions such as banks are not allowed to fail because of the effect on the UK economy and when private companies contracted by Departments to provide services fail and have to be propped up financially to ensure that essential services are protected. Companies are taking the profit without bearing the risk. That is hardly a free or fair market.
Profitable employers who say that they cannot afford to pay a living wage or who depend on cheap labour do not have the business model on which we can build a recovery. We need proper, clear, informed, rational discussion. The public need to understand the extent to which such companies are helped by public funds. We need to stop calling them wealth creators and start calling them state-subsidised industries, because that is what they are. If we are serious about making work pay, the first step is to get those making and taking the profits to pay the wage bill of their own workers, who are often the true, unsung wealth creators.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing it. I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is responding, because he and I belong—or belonged—to the school that believes that it is much better to leave such issues to the market than allow Government intervention, let alone legislation or regulation.
The starting point is that, if people want to prescribe a living wage and some employers wish to pay what they describe as a living wage, they should be free to do so in a free market. There is no issue. The agenda that underlies the hon. Lady bringing forward the debate is that she would like the Government to specify and introduce what has been set out as a living wage.
Mr Chope
I have consistently articulated the same arguments on the minimum wage. I had the pleasure of introducing the Employment Opportunities Bill, fundamental to which was the principle that people should be able to opt out of the minimum wage, thereby increasing the number of employment opportunities. I have been consistent. In fact, I argue that I have probably been more consistent than my party in saying that in this area we should allow individuals and the marketplace to do what they wish to do and we should not intervene.
I make only one concession. The argument about the living wage in a sense embraces one of my criticisms of the minimum wage. The living wage is supposedly £1 or £1.50 higher in London than it is outside London, and yet people, and the party of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in particular, espouse the idea that a national minimum wage needs to be the same across the country. It is recognised that the living wage is different in London. The costs of living in London are higher, so the living wage in London is higher than the living wage outside London. In a sense, the argument opens up the debate about whether to have national regulation or, if there is to be regulation at all, allow regional variation. I am pleased to see some recognition on the part of the Labour party that regional variations are important.
Whether a wage is a living wage depends on who receives the wage. I would like to draw Members’ attention to Donald Hirsch’s “Working paper: uprating the out of London Living Wage in 2012”, which updates the Centre for Research in Social Policy calculations on the living wage outside London. It uses the basis first set out in 2011, produced at the request of the Living Wage Foundation, and draws on the minimum income standard for the United Kingdom. It explains the basis for the outside London living wage level announced by the Living Wage Foundation on 5 November 2012, coinciding with the updating of the London living wage as calculated by GLA Economics.
I will not take Members through all the calculations, which start by calculating minimum living costs in 2012, translate that into a wage requirement, and consider the application of a cap limiting the increase in an applied living wage in any one year. When one looks in detail at the calculations, one sees the fallacy in the hon. Lady’s argument. After carrying out all the calculations for the different types of family, living in different types of accommodation, with differing child care needs, it concludes:
“The following summarises the composition of the costs as set out above, and how this translates into wage requirements”—
in other words, what the hon. Lady would describe as a “living wage”. The hourly wage requirement is £8.38 for a single person and £6 for a couple without children or dependants—significantly below the national minimum wage.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman sit down?
Mr Chope
As soon as we look at the figures, we can extrapolate that an individual needs a wage at a particular level in order to live. That may be so, but a wage is determined in the marketplace, which is why single parents in this country have very low—relatively speaking —labour market participation. It is not worth their while to go out to work, because their wages will not be greater than their living costs or the benefits they receive. One good thing that the Government have done is adopt a policy designed to ensure that work pays and is worth while. If we take two equivalent families—one in work and the other not—the one in work will receive more than the family not in work.
Mr Chope
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman again, because lots of people want to participate in the debate.
Even the figures produced by supporters of the concept of a London living wage demonstrate the variation in living wage—£6 an hour each for members of a couple with no dependants, rising to £18.57 for a single parent with three dependant children. That is an annual wage requirement of £36,319 a year—pretty close to the level at which they would have to pay higher rate tax and lose their child benefit under the wholly misguided benefit arrangements the Government have introduced. That is a side story to what we are discussing.
If an individual wishes to employ someone, they offer a wage for the job and it is up to individuals applying for the job to decide whether it is worth while to undertake it at the wage offered. I hope the Minister will endorse that in his summing up. If employers just offer wages in line with the national minimum wage, they cannot differentiate between the person one might describe as the “honest plodder” and the person with a little more enterprise, flair and, potentially, loyalty to the organisation. That is why it is often in the best interests of a company to offer higher wages, and indeed why I offer gap-year students in my office significantly more than the minimum wage. I recognise that in that way I am more likely to get gap-year students who will stay the course, be conscientious and turn up for work on time than if I offer either zero wages or an internship rate.
I operate in a marketplace myself, and all I am suggesting is that other employers should be encouraged to operate in the marketplace. We should not sleepwalk into having a system of nationally set minimum wages that supposedly amount to a living wage.
Ian Lavery
The hon. Gentleman peddled a lot of information about the national minimum wage that was completely unfounded, and he appears to be doing exactly the same now. Does he not agree that the living wage is good for business, society and people in the workplace?
Mr Chope
The living wage may, in certain circumstances, be good for employers—I have just conceded that—and for employees, because they will receive more money than from another employer. I am much less certain about the overall benefits for society as a whole. Dramatic statements have been made about how, if everybody had the living wage, it would increase the amount paid to the Exchequer and therefore increase the amount of money available to fund public expenditure, but that analysis does not bear detailed scrutiny.
My point is that wages should be left to the marketplace. It is for an individual to present himself, and if he wishes to take a job for £4 an hour—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) shows his scepticism, but a large number of graduates, who are out in the marketplace, are being presented with a stark choice: they either work for nothing—as an intern, basically—or do not receive the minimum wage because that is regarded by employers as unaffordable. Therefore, if an individual said to a potential employer, “I’m prepared to work for £4 an hour,” it would create an illegal situation. The purpose of my Employment Opportunities Bill was to enable people voluntarily to opt out of the requirements of the minimum wage should they so wish. I would have thought that that was pretty fundamental in an open, democratic society, but obviously the control freaks in the socialist party do not like giving people the freedom to do that. [Interruption.]
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. There is too much chatter on the Back Benches.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he really suggesting that the marketplace should determine wages? Would he accept people working for £1 an hour?
Mr Chope
In countries overseas, many people work for less than £1 an hour, and some of them have taken jobs that would have been available to people in this country, because those jobs have been outsourced overseas. Some of the work done shows that companies based in, say, London may want to pay all their staff high salaries, which is fine, but often outsource more menial jobs to overseas locations where people are paid much less than the minimum wage operating in this country. That is an area where the market should operate.
The market for labour in Cornwall or north-east England is different from that operating in London. The market for a young single person is different from that for someone with a lot of dependants. I have constituents, as I am sure does the hon. Gentleman, who have recently been made redundant but have so many commitments that they cannot afford to take a job at a significantly reduced salary, because they would be unable to meet all those commitments. That is part of what I describe as the operation of the marketplace.
I do not feel that I am out on my own on the living wage, but we should not lose sight of the importance of allowing the market to operate in this area. Whether we call it a moral case or whatever, I do not think that someone employed at £6 an hour—taking the figures I gave earlier—should be prevented from being employed because somebody comes along and says that there shall be a national living wage in excess of £6 an hour, with employers shedding employment as a result.
Hundreds of thousands of people are self-employed. They work for far less than the minimum wage or what people might describe as a living wage, but they work hard and for long hours as self-employed people. Why should we condemn what they do, if they are operating in their own marketplace? Why should we base a living wage on a week of 37 and a half hours when, to increase their wages and standard of living, many people choose to work more hours than that? Why arbitrarily choose that number of hours as the basis for assessing a living wage, because a living income may be based on people working a lot more than 37 and a half hours?
This debate has the potential to be quite interesting. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for introducing it. I hope that, in summing up, my right hon. Friend the Minister will leave no room for doubt that the coalition Government are absolutely opposed to the living wage and more regulation.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on initiating this very welcome debate.
I have always believed in the dignity of labour and of work, but for millions in work and living on low pay, life can be a precarious existence that involves counting every penny. Under Labour, great progress was made. The national minimum wage transformed the lives of millions. In my former being as deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and then of Unite, I heard heartbreaking examples of people who, having gone to work for 40, 50 or 60 hours a week, were given their wages slip and saw that they had been paid £1.50 or £2 an hour.
If it is true that the national minimum wage transformed the lives of millions, it is also true that life on the national minimum wage could be very tough, which is why the notion of the living wage was born. It was born in the east end of London, initially by TELCO—the East London Communities Organisation—which was formed by faiths and community groups, as well as by a parents’ movement, about which I shall say more later.
When I was elected deputy general secretary in 2003, one of the first things that I did was to sit down with those excellent people, and together we mounted a highly effective campaign to end poverty pay, initially in Canary Wharf and the City of London. It was nothing short of obscene that good men and women from all over the world cleaned boardrooms and toilets in those giant tower blocks—in which average wages were frequently £150,000, £200,000, £500,000 or £1 million a year—on the national minimum wage, with statutory sick pay, no pension and the basic minimum entitlement to holidays. That powerful movement changed the lives of 4,000 cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London.
Interestingly, an alliance of organised labour and faiths initially drove the process, but as we broke through, first one and then the other, we had more and more employers coming out and saying, “This is right, and we should have done it earlier.”
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I just want to put it on the record that it is right to praise people and organisations such as Barclays, KPMG and the many Labour councils across the country, including my own Ashfield district council, for introducing a living wage.
Jack Dromey
More and more employers are embracing the living wage. The next landmark in our campaign was the organisation of the first strike in the history of the House of Commons—it was of the cleaners. I have the manifesto that was produced by those cleaners. Let me remind Members of where we were just four years ago. We were talking about wages of £4.85 to £5 an hour, 12 days holidays plus statutory days, statutory sick pay only and no pension. I am pleased to say that, with the support of MPs from all parties, we broke through and now those cleaners earn the living wage.
More than 130 employers in London have embraced the living wage, and that is increasingly happening elsewhere in the country—in areas such as Ashfield. In London, all three parties in the Greater London assembly have supported the living wage, and as a result, tens of millions of pounds have gone to the low-paid.
Let me put the case for the living wage. First, it is good for business. There is no question but that it has a substantial impact on productivity. Indeed, in surveys of employers that have introduced the living wage, some 80% have said that there was a discernible improvement in the quality of work and that absenteeism fell by 25%. Two thirds of the employers said that they had seen dramatic improvements in recruitment and retention, with far less churn in their work force than previously, and 70% said that it had been good for the standing and the reputation of their company. Frequently, employers seek to sell themselves as being reputable and ethical, and the fact that they are living wage employers contributes to that. As for the business case, job quality, productivity, service delivery and reputation have all been improved, with a relatively minor increase in costs on the part of those companies.
A living wage is good for the individual, because dignity in work is enhanced by a living wage. Interestingly, in the surveys that have been done of employees in living wage companies, 50% have said that they have been much more willing to embrace change within their companies as a consequence of the fact that, at last, their labour is being recognised by way of the living wage.
The living wage is good for society. Returning to the origins of the living wage campaign in east London in 2001, 2002 and 2003, the parents’ groups were a powerful driver. They argued that having to take on two or three jobs to be able to pay their bills was an enemy of family life. The evidence is that, in London alone, 15,000 families have been lifted out of poverty by the introduction of a living wage. If we look at the principal beneficiaries, we see that 88% are women. A living wage is also good for the taxpayer. By definition, if people are getting a living wage, they are less likely to need to depend on benefits and tax credits.
I am proud to say that Birmingham, like Ashfield and many other local authorities, is now driving forward with the living wage. It was the first pledge to be honoured by the incoming Labour administration last May. There were three stages. The first stage took in the 3,000 directly employed employees in Birmingham, such as the wonderful Elaine Hook. They were previously paid just a penny above the national minimum wage of £6.19. They then received a £1 an hour increase, putting up the wage to £7.45 an hour. Time and again, Elaine Hook has said that she cannot describe the difference it has made to the quality of her life.
The second stage, which is under way right now, relates to the council’s procurement power. I have a strong view that taxpayers and council tax payers are entitled to feel confident that contracts are let to decent and reputable employers—employers who pay the living wage. Such a policy is now being rolled out in Birmingham, but not just by way of insisting that any contract let includes the living wage for goods or services. The council is also building Birmingham’s business base by maximising the letting of contracts in the area and following other noble objectives, such as more employment opportunities for disabled workers.
The third stage is the leadership that we give in the city as a whole and the power of advocacy, working with a wide coalition of interests. Put simply, the argument is that Brummies are worth more than the minimum wage; every one of them is entitled to the living wage.
We are also talking about the sort of society that we are. It is wrong simply to see this as a moral issue. From my own experience in the world of work, I know that there is a powerful business case for the living wage. There is also a powerful economic case, because low-paid workers who move on to a living wage do not salt away their money in tax havens; they spend it in local shops and local businesses.
None the less, there is, unashamedly, a moral case. As part of the great drive for the living wage in Canary Wharf and the City of London, we had, for four consecutive years, multi-denominational faith events in Westminster cathedral. Hosted by the Catholic Church, the events had all the churches, mosques and synagogues coming together. Some 4,000 people would turn up on the feast of St Joseph the Worker, or May day. On one occasion, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Canon John Armitage, the chair of London Citizens, gave two magnificent sermons. They summed up the history of the drive of the faiths and organised labour for the dignity of labour, going back to the 1889 dock strike for the dockers’ tanner. They said that there is a powerful moral case for the living wage. As John Armitage said, markets without morality contain the seeds of their own destruction. The time for the living wage has come.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
There is just over 30 minutes before the start of wind-ups, and six Members wish to catch my eye.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
I agree with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who put his case trenchantly. We are having a very simple argument: it boils down to whether we want free enterprise and a free market system or whether we think that state intervention is the way to achieve better economic outcomes for the people of this country. It seems to me that this debate has been taking place for years in Britain. Until recently, there had been a general presumption in favour of the markets.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) referred to May day as a great rallying point, because of course it was a great socialist parade. Those of us who remember the cold war will recall that May day was the Soviet Union’s big day, when tanks drove through Red square; it was very much something that the Soviet Union celebrated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would love to go back to those days, but many of us have moved on. I make the point perhaps a little flippantly, but there is a serious argument about whether one feels that better outcomes can be achieved through state diktat.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about state intervention. Many people in my constituency and across London must effectively be subsidised through in-work benefits because of their low wages. There is therefore state subsidy and a cost to the state with the current regime.
Kwasi Kwarteng
We could have a separate argument about the efficacy of—[Interruption.] Let us stick with this theoretical idea.
Kwasi Kwarteng
No, I have given way once, and I need to proceed. The notion that one can improve outcomes simply by passing laws about the level of pay is false. The one way—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. I would appreciate it if he were not barracked.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The reason wages have gone up over the past 50 years is economic growth; that is what has driven the rise in real wages, not laws passed by Governments, the minimum wage or anything like that. The one way to secure economic growth is to create a situation in which businesses can thrive. I would like to see lower taxes and more people taken out of taxation—the Government have successfully done that—so that they can spend more of their own money. I would also like the burdens placed on employers through national insurance to be reduced. Such measures will be far more effective in driving up our workers’ standards of living than Westminster or Whitehall imposing a living wage right through the country.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned that there was some regional variation between London and the rest of the country. In the debates about the minimum wage, it was seen as a national minimum wage that did not recognise any variation in the cost of living between London and rural Scotland.
Anas Sarwar
Just to clarify, the hon. Gentleman’s argument is exactly the same argument that was made against the minimum wage in 1997. Does he support the minimum wage?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I support it now, because it is a fact of life. To address the hon. Gentleman’s comment directly, the minimum wage is not set at a level that is damaging to business. It is set at a reasonable level, although I am not saying that it is the best level. I want people to earn more—of course I want them to be more affluent—but the way to achieve greater prosperity is to allow businesses to do well, to flourish and to employ people, and that will not happen as a result of the state demanding a certain level of wages. We have been there: in the ’70s, we had national incomes policy and price policy, but that all failed—it was a complete disaster. It is baffling, in 2013, that we are hearing the same old socialist arguments for Government intervention and control.
I appreciate that many others want to speak, so I will finish on this point.
Ian Lavery
Is it a socialist ideal or policy to support having a decent living wage so that people can put bread on the table for their kids?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have said this about three times in my speech: everybody wants people to have higher wages—[Interruption.]
Kwasi Kwarteng
No one is arguing against higher wages. We are arguing about the most effective way of raising living standards and economic prosperity for the whole country. I am suggesting, as a matter of theory, history and experience, that the socialist approach of using Government diktat is not the most effective way of dealing with this issue.
We can argue about this specific issue. Parties in London are suggesting that we have a living wage, but that is something for companies and councils. I object to the idea that Whitehall and Westminster should set a national living wage that applies right through the country.
Let me finish where I started—with the theoretical debate. There is a big debate about whether a free market system will produce better outcomes than an essentially state-controlled system. All through the world, the most successful economies are free market systems.
Kwasi Kwarteng
In China, the state contributes only 20% of spending. In terms of state spending as a proportion of GDP, China is a far more private sector-driven economy than the UK or other western European countries.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The notion that we can go back to socialism and that that will somehow increase living standards is false, but I fear that that is what this living wage proposal is about. It is simply trying to impose more regulation, more rules and more of a straitjacket on business, thereby inevitably impeding and impairing our ability to grow the economy and create genuine prosperity.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I will try not to be distracted by some of the more bizarre arguments I have just heard. Needless to say, I am unashamed to say that I am a proud socialist, like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), and to stand up for the people I represent, who work—
Lisa Nandy
I will give way in a moment. Let me finish my sentence. I am unashamed to stand up for the people I represent, who, after a long week at work, do not earn enough to pay for basic necessities.
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is rare that we have such candour on this estate, so I am glad to hear what the hon. Lady says. I congratulate her on putting her hand up and saying that she is actually a socialist. That is what this debate is about.
Lisa Nandy
Forgive me, but I thought it was about the living wage and the conditions of the lowest paid in this country.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on helping to put some momentum behind an incredibly important issue. Last year, the council in my area, Wigan council, became one of many around the country to pledge to pay the living wage. That will have profound and important consequences for the 565 people who work for it, but who do not currently earn the living wage. For those who were previously on the minimum wage, the change will put an extra £40 a week in their pockets. The significance of that for the lowest paid cannot be overestimated.
I say to Conservative Members that there is no political fissure on this issue, although they seem to be trying to create one. Although the majority of councils across Greater Manchester that have agreed to pay the living wage are Labour run, Trafford council has done the same, and it is run by the Conservatives. In London, of course, the Mayor, Boris Johnson, has also spoken on this issue.
Lisa Nandy
No, I will not give way, because several people want to speak, and the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
We know the difference the living wage will make for the 4.4 million people across the country who earn less than £7 an hour, and so do the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on Conservative-run councils. We also know the difference it will make for their families. The Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that two parents on the minimum wage can meet only 82% of the basic costs of bringing up their children. Essentially, we are telling those parents, “Go to work, work hard and work long hours. When you come home, your children will still go without the basic essentials they need to have decent childhoods.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that one in four children will grow up in poverty by 2020, which is a disgrace and a scandal. In Greater Manchester, part of which I represent, 40% of children already grow up in poverty.
The failure to pay the living wage strikes at many of the Government’s objectives. Their strategy to tackle child poverty is based on trying to get parents into employment, but 58% of children growing up in poverty have a parent who works. The point is this: if work does not pay, we will not be able to tackle child poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said so eloquently, on behalf of his constituent, Elaine, the living wage means that parents and children get to spend time together. That is why Save the Children and so many other children’s charities support it. There is also a clear economic case. The costs of child poverty have been estimated at some £25 billion a year. Taking action on this issue is an urgent economic necessity, not just a moral one.
I want to take on one of the points that Government Members have made, which is about helping businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead also alluded to that. In my constituency, the public and private sectors are completely interdependent. Some two thirds of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. The other third—until the Government were elected—were employed by the public sector. Small and medium-sized businesses rely on the public sector; they rely on people being in work in it, in decently paid jobs, so that they can spend in their businesses and flourish. The fact that my council has taken a lead and said, “We will ensure that all the people in our employ are able to have enough money to go out and spend it in the local economy,” will be a tremendous boost to the small and medium-sized businesses that I am keen to support.
There is a growing army of people in my constituency who work part-time hours, despite desperately wanting to work for longer, or have zero-hour contracts or are in agency work. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent report so compellingly illustrated, the divide between those in work earning poverty pay and those out of work getting poverty benefits is completely false, because those two groups are one and the same, and they are moving in and out of employment at an alarming rate. Trying to create a divide between the private and public sectors and between people in work and out of work is simply false.
Many of the solutions that have appeared with the growth in poverty in the past few years are from charities. One aspect of that rise has been the alarming and distressing growth of food banks around the Greater Manchester area. Many of those food banks are supported by supermarkets and I pay tribute to them for stepping up and doing that, but those very same supermarkets must ensure that they are not part of the problem, and that they do not refuse to take people on for anything other than part-time work or to pay a living wage. That would help stimulate the economy and meet their employees’ basic needs.
Finally, to set this in the context of what has happened largely over the course of my lifetime, we have seen the earnings of people at the bottom of society stagnate while the earnings of those at the very top have increased significantly. Between 1986 and 2012, incomes in the top 10% increased by 81%, while the bottom 10% increased by only 47%. Research has shown that if the national minimum wage had kept pace with the salaries of CEOs in FTSE 100 companies since 1999, it would now stand at £18.89 an hour.
We know that inequality is bad for society—that has been compellingly demonstrated by “The Spirit Level”—and we see it all the time in our own constituencies. Several Members of Parliament, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I, have been trying to advance the case that, as in America, the pay ratios of the top two average earners in FTSE 100 companies should be published on the front page of their annual reports, so that we can see whether companies are fairly distributing reward. The trouble with that proposal is that, although it may compress and restrain wages at the top, it does not do very much for the lowest paid.
The living wage is becoming an urgent priority in Wigan, in Erith and Thamesmead and up and down the country. The living wage would be an effective and simple way of helping tackle the lengthening queues at food banks, the growing numbers of children growing up in poverty and the families that lack the means to make ends meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead talked about ironing out some of the difficulties that have been raised by the living wage. The situation should not be allowed to continue; it is immoral and bad economics. I would like the Minister to begin by committing to at least ensuring that the living wage is extended to the Government’s employees across the board and to working with companies contracted by Government so that they also pay the living wage to their staff.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) for introducing the debate. It is important, not least because life is becoming increasingly stressful for many low-paid workers.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2011 review of home care for older people highlighted cases of physical abuse, theft, neglect and disregard for privacy and dignity. Last April, the Low Pay Commission reported that 10% of home care workers are paid below the minimum wage, let alone the living wage, with some workers paid per visit rather than per hour, with no reimbursement of travel costs.
There is a link between the findings of those two high-profile studies. Too many home care workers, encouraged to complete each visit as quickly as possible and therefore with their pay as low as possible, are unable to form relationships with the older people they care for and feel pressured to complete the visit too quickly. That dehumanises the service being provided and makes instances of neglect more likely. The worker has little or no job satisfaction, little incentive to do a better job, little spare cash at the end of a tough working week and increasing levels of stress. Unsurprisingly, levels of sickness absence are high and so is employee turnover. When the stress gets too much and illness follows, some workers move on to long-term sickness benefit. It is not only care workers; similar examples exist in almost any low-paid, high-stress employment. We are, in effect, pathologising poverty.
There is another way. Organisations such as Care and Share Associates and Sunderland Home Care Associates have found that they can cut both sick leave and staff turnover by giving their staff better terms and conditions, including liveable incomes. The quality of care provided improves; sickness, including long-term sickness and incapacity, reduces, and the cost to the rest of society is lowered, while the individual worker’s quality of life improves. Many Labour councils in London, including Lewisham, Hackney and Lambeth, have recognised the value of paying the London living wage and have been accredited as living wage employers. Despite support from the Conservative Mayor of London, it is disappointing that no Conservative-controlled councils in London have yet been accredited. I support the campaign by London Citizens, which is part of Citizens UK, alongside The East London Communities Organisation, to persuade Croydon council, which covers my constituency, to sign up to the living wage, both for its own directly employed staff and for staff employed by contractors and sub-contractors.
Employers who implement the living wage have reported improved recruitment and retention of staff, higher work morale and increased productivity. Those all represent increased value for money for the services provided, which is important in these straitened times. Lambeth council found—I was leading it at the time—that when it tendered its facilities management contract on a living wage basis, the market responded positively and came up with innovative ways to meet the requirement within the funds available and without loss of jobs. Many public services are procured through consortia, and we can encourage the market to innovate in ways that allow workers the decency of a living wage by harnessing the purchasing power of those groupings. It is important that the Government recognise their role in encouraging that to happen, because leaving it to the market alone will not result in all those benefits.
There is immense value in ensuring that work pays. People in work should never be forced to live in poverty. That is not just a moral argument; it is about value for money and improving the quality of public services. There are costs to society as a whole, including financial ones, as well as to the individual workers affected, if we force hard-working people into poverty and illness by paying them less than is necessary to meet the basic needs of their lives.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My concern before Christmas, when the welfare Bill debate started, was the absolute gulf between the views of Members and some of the constituents whom we represent. I organised a group of cleaners to come into the House of Commons before Christmas. They were represented by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Industrial Workers of Great Britain, the Public and Commercial Services Union and others. I asked the cleaners to explain what was happening to them at the time, because for them, the market is not working.
I went on the picket lines outside Schroders bank in the City and outside John Lewis as well, whose cleaners are also paid the minimum wage or, in some instances, just above. I found that all of them were doing extra shifts—on average two extra a week. Their working hours were then 50 to 60 hours a week, at a minimum. Some 50% of them had second jobs and some had three jobs. The cleaners were getting up at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning and travelling to work by bus because the tube was too expensive for them. Some of them worked until 7, 8, 9 or 10 o’clock at night, which was absolutely staggering.
One group was employed by a company called trainpeople. They brought their contracts along with them. They were not on zero-hours contracts but on eight-hour contracts, so they were guaranteed only eight hours of work a week. They were on a minimum wage; they had to sign up to travel to anywhere in the country to work; they were on a probation period of 12 weeks; and if they left during that 12-week period they themselves had to pay £200 back to the company. Again, the experiences of these people are just absolutely staggering.
I was then involved with some of the other London living wage campaigns. For example, we won at the London School of Economics, securing the London living wage there. However, what then happened was that the company involved cut the hours of the other workers by 20%. In other words, they were trying to consolidate their profits by cutting jobs and cutting work themselves.
Also, we are consistently finding that, when the living wage goes up—Boris Johnson announced the figure of £8.55 and I am grateful to him for the support that he has given throughout this campaign—the companies involved delay payment of the increase of the wage, too. That is another way of keeping wages suppressed, while at the same time maximising their profits.
The general expression that was used by the cleaners in these cases was, “We are treated like dirt.” They also said, “We are managed in a brutal way, often harassed and have no alternatives.”
There is now a new alliance being put together, in terms of trade unions supporting the London living wage campaign, because people cannot take it any more. Yes, people are seeking to organise and to negotiate, but they are also taking direct action now. The PCS, the IWGB, the RMT and others closed Oxford street before Christmas, because they could not get into negotiations with a company to increase the wages that its employees were on; the employees were arguing for an increase in their wages as they could not survive on their existing wages.
We now have direct action campaigns, such as the UK Uncut campaign, whereby firms are being occupied by workers because those workers are not getting any response from the companies themselves to their requests to increase their wages and improve their conditions. There are other things going on. One union is now planning to set up soup kitchens outside the homes of directors of companies that are making vast profits but paying poverty wages to their workers.
All that activity confirms that the market is not working and that there is a need for state intervention at times—not always, but at times—at least to secure people’s ability to survive in a civilised society with some decency. That is why I welcome this debate today, which will further that campaign.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mrs Main, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate on a very important issue. I represent a constituency in the part of London—east London—that was the birthplace of the living wage campaign. I think that we would all agree—Labour Members would certainly agree and perhaps even some Government Members would agree— that a fair wage for a fair day’s work is something that we support. I was slightly disturbed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seemingly comparing people abroad working for £1 an hour or less with people here in Britain, as though that was an option for people here. I hope that he did not mean it quite that way, but that is how it came across.
Let us remember that it was the Conservative Government of the ’80s who abolished the mechanism for setting fair pay, the wages council. I am very proud that I am a Labour MP and that it was a Labour Government who introduced the minimum wage because of the abysmal failure of having a complete free rein on wages.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we go back to the ’70s and the kinds of industrial relations that we had then?
Meg Hillier
I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman makes a jump to reach that conclusion from my suggesting that we do not want to go back to a complete free rein on pay. That is not what I am saying at all, as he well knows. It is mischievous of him to suggest that I am saying that.
John McDonnell
Can I suggest that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he wants a free market but he does not want free trade unions?
Meg Hillier
I think that we can certainly infer that from the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Meg Hillier
I will just make a little progress before I take interventions.
I am also delighted that it is my party that is seeking to ensure that, in constituencies such as my own, a living wage will enable people to work. Let us be clear about something, before we run away with the idea that a living wage will be very damaging to lots of small businesses. A living wage is not something that a Labour Government would force upon business, or certainly not upon small businesses. There are businesses such as Moo.com in Tech city, which employs people in its warehouse in EC2, providing good, valuable jobs locally. Those people are on the minimum wage for the first part of their contract, until they have been there for a while, and then the company increases their wage. Flexibility is built into the Labour policy to ensure that the system will work.
I will offer one word of caution. We need to look at the hourly gross rate of pay. That is obviously important, because it reflects the day-to-day money that people take home to live on, but we also need to consider pensions and other work benefits. When we assess what is fair pay, those benefits need to be brought into the round. My point is that, if a company pays a little lower than the living wage but pays a pension, we need to be watchful. As a Labour Government, we will need to be clear that the pressure, or indeed the kudos, of paying the living wage does not lead to the erosion of other benefits that are a type of payment in kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some very good points about that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous in allowing interventions. What would she think about a Member of Parliament, for example, or someone else advertising for an apprentice at £3 an hour, which I understand one of her colleagues on the Labour Benches has done?
Meg Hillier
I would be appalled, and indeed I am appalled. I am part of the campaign in Parliament to ensure that all of us—from whatever party—pay people in our offices a fair rate. I like to think that I lead by example on that; in fact, I know I lead by example on the issue, alongside a number of my other colleagues. I think that we can all agree that what the hon. Gentleman just referred to is not something that we would want to see in the mother of Parliaments.
Let me relate this debate to real life, because we could have a theoretical discussion in Parliament about the economics of the issue. A kitchen porter came to my surgery and he was very upset. Being a kitchen porter is low-wage employment, but he was seeking work because he was out of work. However, his jobcentre was asking him to travel further afield in order to take a job as a kitchen porter. One could say that that was quite reasonable. However, because of the low wages for that type of job, the extra costs to travel out of the borough and the extra child care needed because of the longer hours spent travelling, it was not a viable option.
Let us be clear—that man is no shirker. However, the hon. Member for Christchurch suggests that the market would solve that problem, perhaps by single people taking that work. However, my constituent has a family to support; he wants to support them but is unable to do so under the current regime, except that the state will subsidise matters to a degree by providing benefits. So we are talking in the round here. There is always a cost to the state, whichever way we do things, and actually giving people the dignity of earning a living wage with which they can support their family and make choices for their family on their own is very much at the heart of Labour’s policy in this area.
I could add to that kitchen porter many other of my constituents, even some on higher salaries. The tube price hikes and the bus fare hikes by the Mayor of London, and the cost-capping—we had the vote yesterday in Parliament on in-work benefits—all put pressures on people’s ability to pay their costs of living. That is why a living wage gives people the dignity of being able to make their own choices.
We also need to look at national insurance contributions. That is something that we will need to work through as a party, as we flesh out the policy on the living wage. NICs are now more than 13% of total gross pay for small employers, which is more than employees contribute. The on-costs for a small employer are significant and we need to think about how we might want to encourage and support small employers, to get people into work, yes, but also to increase their pay gradually so that they are on a living wage. There is a real interest for business, but some of those start-ups in my constituency will be worried if they foresee a suggestion that overnight they will have to increase wages. We need to handle that issue carefully, because the jobs that are being created in my constituency and elsewhere are important.
I am proud that my local council, Hackney council, is one of those councils that are accredited as paying the living wage, because we in Hackney see the impact on people’s lives of that policy. We are living what is happening. However, it was interesting that when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions in November how many Liberal Democrat councils were paying the living wage, answer came there none.
Meg Hillier
Indeed. Today, not a single Liberal Democrat MP is here in Westminster Hall, even though the Deputy Prime Minister has pledged his support for the policy of a living wage; he has pledged his support, but words can be very empty.
As I say, there is not a single Liberal Democrat MP here in Westminster Hall today, but since November I have discovered that there is actually one small Liberal Democrat-run district council that pays the living wage. In a show of cross-party support, we should congratulate that council on that and hope that it has some influence on the party leader in ensuring that a living wage system is rolled out more widely.
We also need to look at the most profitable companies, which in London are being subsidised—as I mentioned earlier—by taxpayers through tax credits and benefits. There is not a nil cost to lower pay. In fact, it was the current Chief Whip of the Government, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who talked about housing benefit “taking the strain” back in the ’90s. Housing benefit has still been “taking the strain” despite attempts by both the last Labour Government and this Government to change the approach. It is housing benefit that subsidised so many people in their lifestyle, because wages are not high enough.
In London, we cannot raise wages enough to cover all housing costs; I recognise that, before Government Members leap up and suggest that that is what I am saying. I am not saying that, but we must recognise that people need to be paid a rate that they can actually afford to live on and that there is no nil cost to the Exchequer.
Labour’s voluntary model is a moderate one. It says to companies, “Publish. Be transparent about who you’re paying and what you’re paying them.” People can then make judgments for themselves. We have already seen some companies, such as KPMG, lead by example, and if some can do it why not all of them?
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I wish you and all Members who have contributed to the debate a happy new year, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce). I congratulate her on securing such an important and passionate debate.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the living wage is an important means by which greater dignity and fairness can be offered to people, by lifting them and their families out of poverty while at the same time helping them to become less reliant on state benefits. She talked, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), about decent, hard-working people doing the right thing and going out to work to provide for themselves and their families. People having aspirations, and striving for a better future for themselves, their families, their communities and their country, should be rewarded. Hard work and effort should be appropriately remunerated in the form of a decent and dignified rate of pay, to avoid the misery and desperation of in-work poverty.
As Labour Members have mentioned several times, the national minimum wage, introduced by a Labour Government, has done a huge amount by providing the protection of a legal pay floor for more than 1 million people. However, although the minimum wage is an important achievement, it should not, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, be the summit of our ambitions. Indeed, he has been at the forefront of discussions about the living wage.
The living wage complements and reinforces the vision of a one-nation economy, in which everyone in society plays a part and has a stake, and where prosperity is fairly shared. I would like to think that this country, and the manner in which its economy is organised, has the ability to move on from an old-fashioned and outdated form of capitalism, which is what we have heard from the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) today. That form of capitalism sees a confrontational, divisive and somewhat inefficient “them and us” attitude between employee and employer, which prioritises the erosion of employment rights. A race to the bottom in relation to workers’ rights or wage rates will not help this country to improve our competitive position in the 21st-century global economy, or achieve greater fairness and social justice. I do not understand why people on the highest possible rate of pay are motivated by being paid more, while people on the lowest possible rate, who are struggling barely to make a living and feed their families, are motivated by being paid less. That seems fundamentally wrong.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that state legislation will make Britain more competitive in the global economy?
Mr Wright
As I said, the national minimum wage has helped to lift people out of poverty, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, people on the lowest levels of pay tend to spend their money in the economy. The multiplier effect will, therefore, probably help benefits, jobs, prospects and economic positions—it certainly has a beneficial role to play in the economy.
Several hon. Friends have mentioned that local authorities, such as Islington, Lambeth—which was very well led by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed)—Wigan, Camden, Oxford, Preston, Southwark and Hackney have introduced a living wage, and others are set to follow, including Newcastle city council in my own north-east region. In difficult financial times for local government, those local authorities should be applauded for doing the right thing for their employees. I hope that, despite the appalling financial settlement it received from the Government last month—the 2.2% cut being the highest in the region—my own local authority, Hartlepool borough council, will be able to follow suit.
This should not, however, be about local government, or even about the public sector—such an approach is entirely wrong. Wherever possible, a living wage should be adopted in the private sector. It might be more difficult for small businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned, but it should be considered almost automatically by larger enterprises. Credit should be given to the likes of Barclays, Deutsche bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG, which have become living wage employers. The nature of those firms’ business models and the sectors in which they operate, as well as the size of the companies, might mean that they have relatively fewer low-paid workers than other companies, particularly in sectors such as retail. Therefore, all credit must be given to Westfield shopping centre, Lush and the InterContinental Hotels Group, whose business models, on adopting a living wage, will rely more heavily on low-paid workers.
Hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend who introduced the debate, have rightly mentioned the net savings to the Exchequer as a result of the implementation of a living wage. My hon. Friend mentioned that research by the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research found that the Treasury would benefit by about £3.6 billion each year in the form of higher income tax payments and national insurance contributions, and lower benefits spending.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North and other Members have said, there is also anecdotal evidence that businesses will benefit from the introduction of a living wage, and will become more productive. There will be improved staff recruitment and retention and associated cost savings, higher worker morale and therefore improved productivity, and an enhanced corporate reputation in the marketplace. Wendy Cuthbert, head of UK corporate real estate services for Barclays, has said that since the company adopted the living wage in 2007 catering staff retention rates have increased to 77%, compared to an industry norm of 54%, and the rates for cleaning staff have increased to 92%, compared to the industry average of just 35%. She has commented:
“Now when we train our staff we know that the money isn’t being wasted. They don’t want to leave and they no longer have to do two jobs just to survive...Employers need to look at the whole cost of employment not just the cost-per-hour. We don’t understand why more companies don’t do this.”
Guy Stallard, head of facilities at KPMG, has stated:
“We’ve found that paying the Living Wage is a smart business move as increasing wages has reduced staff turnover and absenteeism, whilst productivity and professionalism have subsequently increased.”
I have a number of questions for the Minister. On Government policy, the Minister in the other place, the one who did not resign yesterday, the noble Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has confirmed that the
“Government back the idea of a living wage and we encourage businesses, where possible, to take it up.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1092.]
Can the Minister confirm that that is still the case and that it is Government policy, despite the comments from his Back Benchers this afternoon?
Kwasi Kwarteng
No one has an issue with individual companies deciding to pay the living wage. That is entirely how a market should work.
Mr Wright
Let me come on to that in my questions to the Minister.
How is that encouragement that was mentioned by the Government in the other place manifesting itself in tangible and practical action? What are the Government actually doing to encourage businesses to consider becoming living wage employers? What meetings has the Minister had with businesses and business organisations to discuss the matter? Has he met with colleagues across Government, such as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to ascertain how organisations in other sectors have successfully implemented a living wage? Has he, or have his officials, met with Citizens UK, for example, to discuss what practical steps can be taken? Citizens UK is an organisation that is doing an awful lot of work in relation to the living wage campaign. Has the Minister considered a promotional campaign, sponsored by his Department, to raise awareness about the issue with businesses? Has he considered amending corporate governance rules, to ensure that large listed companies can report specifically on whether they have paid the living wage, as a means of encouraging take-up by larger companies?
The Prime Minister has said:
“Where government leads, others will follow”,
and business will legitimately look to the Government to see whether their actions match their rhetoric. As I understand it, and as has been said, the Department for Work and Pensions is the only Department that has announced that it will pay the London living wage, although two others, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice, might follow suit. Could the Minister inform the House how many Departments plan to pay the living wage, and when? Given that the Minister is in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and another Minister has said that the Government will encourage businesses to take up the living wage, does the Minister’s own Department have any plans to ensure that all its employees and contracted workers are paid the living wage? What work is he doing with non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department to look into the possibility of their becoming living wage employers too?
I raised earlier the issue of research and the collection of evidence on the savings to the public purse and the positive impact on business. Has the Minister commissioned any research into the effect of the living wage, including the possible social, economic and business impacts?
One of the most powerful levers at the Government’s disposal is not regulation or legislation but procurement, and that has been mentioned a number of times in the debate today. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that Departments could give preferential treatment to contractors who pay the living wage. My understanding is that No. 10 quickly dismissed my right hon. Friend’s suggestion, stating that such a move would breach EU procurement rules. The European Commission, however, has explicitly stated:
“Living-wage conditions may be included in the contract performance clauses of a public procurement contract ‘provided they are not directly or indirectly discriminatory and are indicated in the contract notice or in the contract documents’.”
There is no problem or obstacle in European law, so will the Minister confirm that what the European Commission said is already the case? In that light, will he outline the actions he will take to ensure that employers who pay the living wage are considered favourably in public procurement?
The living wage is an important social and economic lever in which everyone has a stake, people in work have a more dignified and higher standard of living than would otherwise be the case and prosperity is better and more fairly shared. I hope that the Minister will outline how he will advance the introduction of a living wage across businesses and across society more generally.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate. She has long championed the living wage, and it is a tribute to her work that she has been able to attract such a large participation in today’s debate and, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, such a passionate exchange of views. The living wage is a subject that arouses great passions.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) asked about the absence of Liberal Democrat Members. I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats—I am not very good at that—but the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), is responsible for this portfolio in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and she is answering the debate in the main Chamber at this very moment, which is why, Mrs Main, you and the others in attendance have to put up with a stand-in.
We would all like people to be paid more, but obviously there is concern that requiring all businesses, large and small, to pay a living wage as proposed would price people out of work, particularly young people. Encouragement is a better approach than compulsion, because the alternative would reduce the flexibility of businesses and could ultimately be bad for jobs.
We already have a national minimum wage that we require all businesses to pay, and the Government fully support that. The minimum wage is the national rate that the Government of the day—including the previous Labour Government—judge, based on the independent Low Pay Commission’s recommendations, as striking the appropriate statutory balance, trying to increase workers’ take-home pay without damaging employment or other elements such as prices. The adult national minimum wage that we inherited, £5.80 an hour, has now reached £6.19 an hour. That is a 6.7% increase, which is faster than the growth in average earnings over the same period.
The Government have targeted further help at the take-home pay of the low-paid by cutting their taxes. When the coalition Government came into power, the personal tax allowance stood at just £6,475. The Government are committed to making the first £10,000 of income free from income tax by the end of the Parliament. April 2013 will see the next step of that commitment: the personal allowance will increase by £1,335, the largest ever increase, to £9,440 to support hard-working individuals. Those tax cuts for the low-paid have taken 2 million people out of income tax altogether. Those still paying tax will be taking home £57 more each week in April and more than £67 more each week by the end of the Parliament. Under this Government, people working full time on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill cut in half.
In difficult times, the Government have, therefore, clearly given priority to the lowest-paid by providing strong support for the national minimum wage, which aims to maximise the pay of low-paid workers without damaging employment, and tax cuts focused directly on the low-paid through raising the tax allowance to £10,000 a year by the end of the Parliament.
That is not all. The Government are continuing to take steps to support households with the cost of living. We have frozen council tax for the third year running. We have cancelled the 3p fuel duty increase planned for this month—average pump prices are 10p a litre lower than under Labour’s fuel duty plans—and we have capped rail fare increases, which will benefit 250,000 annual season ticket holders. That is in marked contrast to Labour, which doubled council tax, doubled gas prices and increased fuel duty 12 times.
Raising the minimum hourly rate to the proposed living wage rate would have consequences. If those consequences make things worse rather than better, it would make no sense to introduce the living wage. The biggest danger is pricing people out of work because the business concerned cannot sustain the higher labour costs of the living wage. In that case, the individuals who lose out are socially excluded from the world of work; the business will be less able to compete and earn profits; and the Government will lose out because growth is lower, tax receipts are less and benefit payments are higher.
The national minimum wage raises awkward questions about the proposed living wage. In particular, the remit that Parliament, under the previous Labour Government, gave to the Low Pay Commission has the primary aim of setting the maximum hourly national rate possible without any adverse effect on employment. The current adult national minimum wage of £6.19 an hour is substantially below the suggested 2011 living wage rate outside London of £7.45 and even further below the £8.55 London rate. Requiring all businesses to pay the living wage would increase wage costs by approximately 20% outside London and by approximately 38% in London. That is without taking into account other increases in labour costs, such as national insurance.
The picture becomes much starker when we look at the position of those under the age of 21. There are separate, lower, minimum wage rates for younger workers because of the previous Government’s concern that a higher rate would damage their employment prospects; there is no such distinction in the proposed living wage. That means that the difference between the minimum wage and the proposed living wage for someone working in London aged between 18 and 20 would be some £3.57, an increase of 72%. For someone aged between 16 and 17, the difference would be £4.87, an increase of 130%.
The Low Pay Commission is concerned to ensure that minimum wage increases do not have adverse effects on employment. The commission’s most recent recommendations have been for a 1.8% increase in the adult rate and a freeze in the youth rates. It stated that
“we concluded that in the current difficult economic circumstances caution is essential.”
These differences imply that if the proposed living wage rates were imposed universally, they would inevitably price some people out of work. Those who keep their jobs will receive at least the increased living wage, of course, but they might prefer to keep more of their colleagues working alongside them. The Government, like the previous Government, believe there is no case for imposing a higher minimum wage across the country by statute.
Some argue that it would be easier to implement the living wage in the public sector than in the private sector. That is only true, however, if the effect of implementing the living wage does not lead to higher procurement costs. Otherwise, implementing the deficit-reduction plan will be more difficult, with either greater public sector job losses elsewhere or higher taxes, which would make it more difficult to reduce the taxes of the lower-paid.
Opposition Members have claimed the living wage is an issue of fairness, but last night we saw that the Labour party wants benefits to rise faster than workers’ wages, which is not fair. Labour’s plan would inevitably mean more borrowing and more debt.
In contrast, our priority is to increase the take-home pay of low-paid people. The key elements of that are the national minimum wage and raising the tax allowance to £10,000 by the end of the Parliament. We believe that workers and businesses are best placed to determine the pay and working conditions that both suit the workers and deliver success for the business. The level of unemployment among young people that we inherited is already too high.
Special Educational Needs (Wirral)
(11 years, 4 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
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and hear the Government’s view. The issue affects a few people in my constituency, but its importance is in no way diminished by the number of people affected. Those of us who have listened to the parents of children with significant disabilities can never meet them without feeling a great responsibility to listen to them and understand their concerns, which I will attempt to relay in this debate.
I am not a specialist by any means in special educational needs and assisting children with disabilities and their families, which is another reason why I requested the debate, but whenever I meet my constituents who have children with profound and multiple learning disabilities, I am struck by their commitment and dedication. I have no doubt that every MP thinks that their constituents are special and important, but those constituents of mine are some of the most dedicated people in our society, and they deserve our full respect and appreciation. Their children are deeply important members of our community.
For those reasons, I want to refer to education from the ages of two to 19 in schools in Wirral and specifically the Lyndale school, which I have visited several times, as did my predecessor. I am sure that I speak for him when I say that we have been struck in recent years by how fantastic a place the school is. It has about 20 children, so it is a very small school, and it specialises in education for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. They are the children coping with the most complex difficulties and profound disabilities. All 20 of them use wheelchairs, seven of the children require oxygen, six require suctioning and many have epilepsy.
In 2010, I visited the school to present it with an award from a national epilepsy charity for the care that it gives to children with epilepsy. I was pleased and proud to do so. Although the school is small, it is an expert environment. I understand that some of the children need the help of up to 30 professionals. They may come into contact with lots of different people, which can be stressful. Parents must constantly retell their child’s story. I understand how frustrating, difficult and at times upsetting they must find that.
Having listened to those parents, I understand why they can conclude that the best environment in which to educate their child is one that is more constant than the primary-secondary model. I will refer to the change between primary school, which serves the ages of two to 11, and secondary school, which serves the age of 11 upwards, as transition. Parents have described to me their uncertainty whether they want transition for their child. It can be stressful. They have explained to me that their child’s needs are so complex that they feel that a two-to-19 environment might be better. It is not specifically about a fixed idea that their child should be in one environment throughout that age range; rather, it is the idea that the transition should come at a time that is right for the child and that there should be flexibility around the needs of the family rather than a transition that is decided on in advance.
I should say at this point that although I am not an expert, I understand that the question of a transition for all children is one on which different professionals take different views. I do not presume to know the right answer; my aim is to relay to the Government the views of my constituents. They feel that a transition is not right for them, and they would like Wirral council to consider helping the Lyndale school become two-to-19 if it wishes. Clearly, it is not for the Minister to say what the right decision is for Wirral to take, but I would be grateful for advice and assistance from the Government—I will come to specific asks—to help my constituents to address the question.
I understand that a significant minority of special schools in the country are two-to-19 schools. In its 2006 report on special educational needs, Ofsted found that the crucial factor in the successful education of children with special needs is not the type of school but the quality of the environment and the education that they receive. That makes sense to me. Having visited various schools, I know that what is important is not necessarily the name on the door or the structure within which the school operates, but rather the expertise of the people assisting the children. That is reflected in my constituents’ desire for their children to be looked after in a way that centres on their needs. They are children for whom the challenges are greatest. We as a community have the biggest responsibility to assist them, given the complexity of their needs.
Expertise states that the transition between primary and secondary school is less of a priority for parents than their children’s specific needs. Those views should be listened to, as we should listen to all parents about their concerns for their child’s needs. I hope that there is cross-party acceptance of that basic principle. As has been explained to me, some professionals in the Wirral view transition as important. However, one of our neighbouring authorities, Cheshire West and Chester, has several two-to-19 schools. If a school such as the Lyndale, which has expertise, wants to go in that direction, it is important to consider how we can empower it to do so.
Before I delineate how I hope that the Government, the Minister and civil servants might help us address the concerns of parents at the Lyndale school, I note that the funding system for all schools—specifically, special schools—is changing. As we can all understand, those changes will affect the smallest and most specialised schools the most. A small fluctuation in numbers can have large consequences for them. Additionally, because those small specialist schools assist children with the greatest and most complicated difficulties, such changes can cause a lot of stress that does not happen in a normal school environment. I have tried to consider the issue in the light of future funding changes and how they might force a need for change.
I have two questions for the Minister and a request for help. First, professionals take different views on whether a transition is required or advisable and parents feel differently about that. The assistance that we can give children with disabilities is changing all the time and expertise is developing. I should be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed whether the Department can help us in Wirral with some expert advice on whether to transition and how a two-to-19 environment might assist children with profound and multiple learning difficulties with the most complex of needs. Will he say how we can access more advice and whether there are national specialists who may be able to help us in the Wirral?
I am conscious that nearby authorities do things slightly differently and that schools throughout the country may have already looked at how to assist children with profound and multiple learning difficulties and considered whether they should transition. Ministers and civil servants may be aware of other factors, in terms of the advances that are being made helping children facing the most difficult educational challenges.
Secondly, how will the new funding arrangements affect the smallest schools? No doubt, the Government will be aware of other small schools—for example, those in rural areas where it is not realistic to ask children to travel—when considering the new funding arrangements. I should also like the Minister to say how this impact can be borne in mind in relation to schools, such as Lyndale, where parents already deal with significant challenges: their working lives are made more complex by their family’s needs and the rest of their family life will be affected by the needs of one child. It is our duty, as politicians, to understand those needs and do everything that we can to support those children and the wider family and help parents—having listened to and understood them—to make decisions about their child’s education.
Funding changes will affect the smallest schools the most, particularly special schools, and parents of children at such schools will have more stresses, and so on, to think about than the average family. I should be grateful to the Minister if he said what has been considered in respect of how funding changes will affect schools, including the Lyndale in my constituency.
We have a responsibility to give care and attention to children with profound and multiple learning difficulties, to understand them as individuals and to try to give them the most expert care that we can. To do that we need to listen to their parents, who know them best and understand their needs. We in the Wirral are wrestling with the somewhat technical point about whether there should be transition. I ask the Minister and the Government what expertise they can help to bring to bear in that regard, so that we can resolve this question and truly give the parents of those children the best possible service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this important debate. As a near neighbour, I thank her both for showing a profound interest in what is happening in her constituency with regard to the provision for children and young people with special educational needs and for discussing the issue more generally, as it affects the close to 1.62 million children who are designated as having special educational needs.
Before I say what the Government are doing to deal with current systemic difficulties, I should like to deal with the two points that the hon. Lady raised. Clearly, she has taken a keen interest in the situation at Lyndale special school and has spoken to parents who are caring for their children with profound difficulties and disabilities and coping with those things. I put on record my appreciation and praise for the dedication that they show as carers. Sometimes, it is easy to underestimate that role, but it is not something that they have to do on the odd day; they do it day to day, continuously. The short-break money that we have provided—about £800 million—is an important part of the package available to parents, such as those of children at the Lyndale school, to ensure that they get the support that they need, so that they can continue to provide the best possible care for their children.
It is not for the Government to interfere in the circumstances surrounding the school and the process that Wirral council is also grappling with. The school has other freedoms available to it and may want to consider applying to the Secretary of State for the freedom to change its status as a school through the academy process. On the evidence and expert advice about the periods of transition and what the right model is for certain children who require specialist provision in an educational environment, there is a wealth of research out there and differing views about whether such provision should be in the mainstream or in a specialist environment.
The hon. Lady requested support from the Department so that she and her constituents might be better informed about what works best. I can offer an arrangement for her to meet officials in my Department, particularly the professional SEN adviser, to discuss the matter in a little more detail, providing her with opportunities to explore it further and to provide some answers to questions asked by her and her constituents about how the best provision for the children can manifest itself in the type of environment that is available to them locally.
We are going through a period of funding reform, as the hon. Lady mentioned, but the funding arrangements for special schools will combine place funding with funding for each individual child, so there is still emphasis on the individual child in deciding the overall sum that would be available to meet the needs and support required for that child through education. That place funding protects schools, and funding for individual children ensures that resources are used to meet their needs. It is incumbent on local authorities to have a good dialogue with all schools, including the Lyndale special school, to ensure that the transition—we are in the realms of transition—from the current funding regime to the new one does not undermine the potential for the Lyndale special school to provide what the hon. Lady has said is an expert environment—I have no reason to think that that is incorrect—for some children with profound difficulties.
The hon. Lady mentioned parents’ struggles with the SEN system—that reflects the outcome of the consultation and Green Paper exercise that the Government have undertaken—particularly parents’ and children’s views being taken seriously, and being heavily involved in the initial assessment process and the delivery and implementation of what, at the moment, is called a statement but will be called an education, health and care plan.
The hon. Lady also mentioned points of transition, where children move from one part of their education to another, particularly at key stages, such as from primary to secondary and on to further education. At the moment, there is a separate system. A hallmark of the reforms that we want to introduce is that it will become a single system, with a single assessment process. Many parents, including those in the hon. Lady’s constituency, will welcome that.
The Government’s aim is that all children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities have the opportunity to reach their full potential in school and that they are supported to make a successful transition into adulthood, whether in employment, further or higher education, or training. With the current system not working well enough for parents or for children and young people with SEN, it is important that we address that. It has been more than 30 years since the last reform to the SEN system.
As the hon. Lady said, the system often works against the wishes of families, and although it is now much more child-centred, we must not forget that parents and carers form much of that child’s life and we must ensure that they also get the necessary support. Such support is often identified too late. Families are made to put up with a culture of low expectations about what their child can achieve at school, and that is illustrated by the huge gap in attainment at every key stage between children with SEN and their peers. That gap is persistent, and although there have been some notable improvements in recent years, especially with the assistance of the achievement for all model—the evidence-based model supported and funded by the Government that is now in more than 1,000 schools—the gap is still too great, and more needs to be done to bridge it.
In the Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability”, published last year, a strong case was made for moving to a single system that goes not only from two to 19, but from nought to 25, because early and continued support is more likely to produce the outcomes that we want for children and young people who find themselves needing that extra support to achieve the educational attainment that we all know they can reach.
It is important not only that the system picks up and identifies as early as possible the support that is needed, but that that support is put in place as quickly as possible and in a way that is as integrated and co-ordinated as is achievable. One of the flaws in the current system is that it has been too fragmented. The hon. Lady pointed out that many parents and young people are assessed incessantly and that that assessment is duplicated; they have to repeat themselves again and again. We want a much more integrated approach in which education, health and social care work closely together. They will have a duty to co-operate and to commission their services jointly, to ensure that the delivery of those services is much more joined up and that parents do not have to grapple with a system that is incoherent and difficult to navigate.
We have drafted legislation that was published in September. We have just been through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny, which involved my having the pleasure of presenting myself in front of the Select Committee on Education to give evidence. That process culminated in the Education Committee’s report, which I encourage the hon. Lady to look at, and the response will shortly be provided to the Committee. In conjunction with that and to ensure that the measures are not only a legislative vehicle but make the changes on the ground that parents want to see, including in the Wirral, we have set up 20 pathfinders across 31 local authorities. That is not happening in the hon. Lady’s local authority and, indeed, not in mine, but it is close by in Wigan, Oldham, Manchester, Rochdale and Trafford, as well as elsewhere throughout the country.
The aim is to improve choice and control within the system for parents and young people to help to drive better outcomes. The findings from those programmes are informing not only the legislation, the code of practice and the regulations that will follow, but how we can improve practice on the ground. The pathfinders will be trailblazers and champions for innovative approaches, so that other local authorities nearby can adopt similar tactics to improve their offer to young people with SEN and disabilities.
To ensure that that process continues after the Bill has been through both Houses, we decided to extend the pathfinder programme for an additional 18 months, which will give us a richer wealth of experience to draw on to ensure that we get the legislation right, that it delivers on the ground and that there is no disconnect between what we do in Westminster and what actually happens in schools throughout the country.
We are developing a new system that will be built on a much stronger and more streamlined assessment process, which importantly, as the hon. Lady mentioned, includes parents, children and young people. We are even piloting the prospect of children themselves being able to appeal against a decision made by a local authority not to provide them with an education, health and care plan or not to adhere to a request for an assessment. That is quite an advance on the current system. We want to ensure that the assessment process is integrated and that it is a quality assessment. That will help to ensure that, right from the start, parents and children are confident that their support will reflect what they believe is necessary and that it is provided by professionals who are talking to and engaging with each other and delivering it collectively, rather than in individual silos, as happened too often in the past.
In Solihull, for example, the pathfinder has already made progress on improving the assessment process, which has been shortened from 26 weeks to 14 weeks. In Southampton, a single assessment process for the education, health and care plan is being developed and tested for children with high medical needs but no significant educational needs. We sometimes work on the premise that a child with special educational needs and disabilities can be categorised one way or the other, but there is a whole spectrum of children in that group. The hon. Lady mentioned the Lyndale school, which deals with children with particularly profound difficulties, and it should look at this good innovation as it starts to develop its own assessment and planning process for children in its area.
It is also important for those children who are not statemented at the moment and who would not necessarily require in future the support that an education, health and care plan delivers that the transparency and accountability of the services on offer to other children with special educational needs are clear to parents and that they know how to seek redress should they not receive the services that they require. That is why we are going to improve the local offer and make it transparent both in content and delivery. Parents will be involved in its formulation, and we are looking at how the monitoring will include parents to ensure that they are far more in control of the services being delivered locally.
The work does not stop there. So much more needs to be done to the system outside the legislative process. We have funded more than 10,000 SEN co-ordinators. We have increased the amount spent on further education around special educational needs and additional learning support. We have launched a £3 million trial of supported internships, so that children and young people with special educational needs who want to go on to further education have the necessary support to enable them to do so.
We have a packed programme to ensure that we move to a system that deals with some of the fundamental issues that the hon. Lady has raised, such as ensuring that parents have knowledge at their fingertips and are involved in the process of ensuring that their child receives the necessary support throughout their whole educational experience and before and after from nought to 25, so that they achieve the outcomes that we all want.
Clearly, issues have been raised that are specific to Wirral and the school in which the hon. Lady has taken a keen interest. In a spirit of being as co-operative and helpful as possible, I am sure that she will be delighted to take up my offer to come and meet officials and professionals in my Department who, if they cannot advise her on her specific point, may be able to point her in the direction of information to give her and her constituents the confidence that they are in a better position to understand and challenge the local authority on its approach.
Finally, the hon. Lady’s constituents may want to consider the fact that the new system will enable every parent and young person to name a school in their plan, which may help them to obtain the provision that they want for their children throughout their education and beyond.
Antibiotics (Intensive Farms)
(11 years, 4 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
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Main, to serve under your chairmanship. I will make a short speech, and allow as much time as possible for interventions.
Clearly, everyone is concerned about the rise in the number of cases of bacterial infection, whether campylobacter, MRSA or blood poisoning from E. coli, cases of which have increased by nearly 400% in the last 20 years. What makes the problem so much more alarming is the accompanying rise in resistance to those infections. As the Minister will know, antibiotic resistance is a growing worldwide problem. We cannot yet call it a crisis in the UK, but some indications are ominous, particularly as no new antibiotics are in the development pipeline to treat some important infections. It should be noted that, when resistance problems occur, the cost to the NHS of successfully treating a patient may increase between 10 and 100 times.
The Government’s assessment is that most of the resistance problems that affect UK patients can be blamed on the inappropriate use of antibiotics in human medicine. I am sure that is true, but the antibiotics used in veterinary and human medicine are closely related, and a growing body of evidence indicates that, for some serious infections, the inappropriate use of antibiotics on farms leads to the development of resistance among farm animals that can and does pass to humans. Sir Liam Donaldson, former chief medical officer, starkly acknowledged that in his annual report three years ago in 2009, when he said of antibiotics:
“every inappropriate or unnecessary use in animals or agriculture is potentially signing a death warrant for a future patient.”
For far too long, the link between the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in intensive farming and the serious threat from antibiotic resistance have been utterly ignored. For example, although I welcomed last year’s public warning from the current chief medical officer—
Zac Goldsmith
I had just quoted Sir Liam Donaldson, on
“a death warrant for a future patient”,
as a result of the overuse of antibiotics, and I had complained that the British Government have routinely ignored the link between antibiotics in intensive farming and the public health threat. I was about to cite the current chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, on the growing problems of resistant strains of bugs, as well as the Health Protection Agency in November. It was striking that the message focused 100% on over-prescribing by doctors, with zero mention of the use of antibiotics in the livestock industry.
Similarly, when I tabled a parliamentary question to the Department of Health on what funding it provided for research into drug-resistant bacteria, the answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), explicitly mentioned hospital-acquired infections, but not the use of antibiotics in farming. I was encouraged, however, by a reply from the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), when I asked him about the link between E. coli resistance to antibiotics and record antibiotic usage on farms. He said:
“Indeed, I was interested to see analysis some years ago of the extent of antibiotic resistance in hospitals in the Netherlands. Resistance was clearly much more prevalent in parts of Friesland where there was much greater antibiotic usage in farming. I therefore completely understand, and my colleagues in DEFRA understand this too. Just as we are looking for the responsible and appropriate prescribing of antibiotics in the health service, my colleagues feel strongly about the proper use of antibiotics in farming.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 842.]
However, since then, we have had a near complete clean sweep of Ministers at both Departments—the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising a very important subject. Is his argument, at least in part, that the collaboration cross-departmentally, which should take place through the chief scientific advisers committee, is not happening, or is what they are considering simply not being taken proper notice of?
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suspect that that is part of the problem, but as I will come to later, I think it is also the case that the agribusiness sector in this country has had a disproportionate impact on policy. That is a point that I hope to impress during the debate.
As I was saying, there has been a near clean sweep of Ministers at both Departments, so this debate provides an opportunity to clarify Government policy. The Government are right to insist on better infection control in hospitals and changes in the way that antibiotics are prescribed by doctors. However, other than the brief answer that I quoted from the former Secretary of State, there has been virtually nothing from the Government that could in any way encourage vets and farmers to be similarly prudent. Not surprisingly, therefore, there has been little progress; on the contrary, analysis by the Soil Association of the Government’s statistics indicates that the overall use of antibiotics per animal on UK farms increased by 18% between 2000 and 2010, while the farm use of third and fourth-generation cephalosporins—drugs described by the Health Protection Agency as hospital workhorses—increased by over 500%.
Furthermore, recently published data from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate show that sales of fluoroquinolone antibiotics for use in veterinary medicine over the past two years have been 70% higher than they were in 2000. It is worth noting that when fluoroquinolones were first licensed for use in poultry in the UK in 1993, there was no registered antibiotic-resistant campylobacter in people who had not been treated with the antibiotics, but by 2007, almost half—46%—the campylobacter food poisoning cases caused by the most common strain were resistant. It is worth noting also that in 2008, the European Food Safety Authority said:
“A major source of human exposure to fluoroquinolone resistance via food appears to be poultry”.
Clearly, antimicrobials should be used to treat sick animals, and I do not think anyone would argue against that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he feel that the use by the farming sectors—whether pig, poultry or beef—of antibiotics is unnecessary, because there is a blanket use, rather than reacting to disease? Does he feel that that has a direct impact on us as human beings? Many people come to me and say that the antibiotics are not working, and they are getting three doses from the doctor. Is that feeding off what is happening?
Zac Goldsmith
Again, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I thank him for making it. I will come to that in more detail shortly.
There is no argument against treating sick animals with antimicrobials but, surely, not the most modern and medically important ones, especially when other antibiotics, which are not as critically important in human medicine, are available. I recognise that this topic does not lend itself easily to tabloid news, but there is a real, worrying chance that that could change. By overusing antibiotics, we risk ruining for future generations one of the great discoveries of our species. In short, we risk entering the post-antibiotics age.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that some antibiotics have already been lost to resistance: for example, penicillin for staphylococcal wound infections, ampicillin for infections of the urinary tract and ciprofloxacin for treating gonorrhoea. Many more are under threat, and new antibiotics are increasingly hard to find and license. We are now using our reserve antibiotics, and worryingly, seeing the spread of resistance to them as well. For example, rises in resistance, such as those seen for E. coli, force doctors to use carbapenems, which were previously the reserve antibiotics for use when other treatments had completely failed. However, we are now using carbapenems much more and seeing the spread of resistance to them as well.
University of Cambridge researchers revealed the first cases in UK livestock of a new strain of the multi-resistant superbug MRSA. It is called ST398, and it has become endemic in European and north American pig populations and has spread to poultry and cattle. It is significant because, unlike most strains of staphylococcus aureus found in farm animals, it is readily able to transfer to humans. If not checked, that is likely to lead to rising community-acquired MRSA, just at the time that hospital-acquired MRSA is falling, due to sterling efforts by health professionals.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. In the light of the very real health risks and the strong words from a former chief medical officer, as the hon. Gentleman has said, about the unnecessary use of antibiotics being nothing less than
“a death warrant for a future patient”,
does he agree that we need a legally binding timetable for the phased ending of all routine, prophylactic, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals?
Zac Goldsmith
I do, and I will be coming to that point as well, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Clearly, we need to continue with efforts to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics by doctors, but the European Food Safety Authority was spot-on—I do not often say that—last year when it warned that
“it is…of high priority to decrease the total antimicrobial use in animal production in the EU.”
To date, the UK Government’s antibiotic resistance strategy, as I have said, has focused exclusively on over-prescribing by doctors, with zero mention of antibiotics in the livestock industry. Although they have spent money trying to understand why we are seeing a rise in bacterial infections, they are spending nothing, as far as I know, to understand the rise in resistance, which is clearly the issue of importance.
The Department of Health is currently developing its new cross-Government, five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy and action plan for 2013 to 2018, so I ask the Minister these questions today. Will she promise that it will give significant consideration to the use of antibiotics on farms and to the link between farm use and resistance? Will the Government work with the veterinary profession and the agricultural industry, as they have done in recent years with the medical profession? Does she agree that we need better data on antibiotic use, published by antibiotic family and by animal species, as is already done in France? If we do not know the type and quantity of antibiotics used and how they are used, there is very little chance of our being able to understand the emergence of resistance.
Furthermore, will the Minister lobby vigorously her ministerial colleagues at DEFRA to take urgent action to restrict the prophylactic use of antibiotics, to limit the prescription and use of antimicrobials for the herd treatment of animals to cases in which a vet has assessed that there is a clear clinical justification and to limit the use of critically important antibiotics to cases in which no other type of antimicrobials will be effective?
Will the Minister call on DEFRA to ban the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in poultry production to reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance in E. coli, campylobacter and other infections in humans? Incidentally, it is worth pointing out that campylobacter is the most common cause of food poisoning in the UK, affecting some 350,000 people a year, and poultry is the source of between 50% and 80% of those cases. A ban of that sort would bring the UK into line with the US, where the Food and Drug Administration stopped the use of those antibiotics in poultry in 2005, because of increasing resistance in campylobacter. Denmark, Finland and Australia also do not use fluoroquinolones in poultry. All those countries have lower levels of resistance in humans.
I mentioned Denmark, and it is worth taking a moment to consider the Danish situation. The latest Danish disease surveillance report showed that, although the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the country’s pig population had decreased since the tighter restrictions came into effect, including the banning of cephalosporins, the level of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in meats being imported into the country is higher than in its domestic meat. Nearly half the tested samples of chicken meat imported into Denmark in 2011 contained resistant bacteria. The Danish Government, quite rightly, have taken their concerns to Brussels, complaining that their national approach has been undermined by other EU states’ continued overuse of antibiotics.
Almost certainly, excessive antibiotic use on farms is linked to the intensive manner in which animals are kept. Improving animal health and welfare by limiting overcrowding and the worst excesses of factory farming must therefore become key components of the Government’s antibiotic resistance strategy. Disease prevention should be achieved through good hygiene, husbandry and housing, without recourse to the regular prophylactic use of antimicrobials—a point that has been made by two hon. Members. I recognise that factory farming interests have wielded enormous influence on Government policy for many years and that any move to restrict the use of antibiotics today will be fiercely resisted by them.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend have any evidence to suggest that this problem is more prevalent in what he describes as factory farming than in what I would call farming more generally?
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come to that point in about 20 seconds if he does not mind, because I want to demonstrate the vigour with which the industry has in the past resisted and will continue to resist any change such as I have described. Indeed, I had a briefing yesterday from the British Poultry Council that included some fascinating statements. In it, the BPC says:
“There is no scientific evidence that intensive farming systems contribute more to the overall risk of antibiotic resistance than extensive farming systems.”
On the contrary, two DEFRA-funded reports find that antibiotic resistance is roughly 10 times lower in organic chickens and pigs than in conventional equivalents. The BPC says in the same report:
“The industry is not aware of any recent evidence that ESBLs”—
extended-spectrum beta-lactamases—
“(E.COLI) are increasing in chicken farms across the UK.”
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I would like to pursue this point a little further. The reference made then was to organic farming. I was an extensive farmer and I have always had the view that the sloppy use of antibiotics was every bit as bad in extensive farming as in intensive units. I can understand the point in relation to organic farming, but not to extensive farming.
Zac Goldsmith
The difficulty is that it is very hard to measure antibiotic use in extensive farming of the sort that my hon. Friend describes, whereas in organic farming there is quite clear regulation—self-regulation, in effect—which enables that comparison to be made. He is probably right, but I cannot authenticate what he says, because the data simply do not exist.
The second BPC quote that I read out cannot be true. The BPC must be aware of DEFRA’s statement last year that as many ESBLs were found in chickens in the first half of last year than in the entire previous year, so what it has said to me in its briefing simply is not true.
The BPC also says:
“Antibiotics may only be used on a farm if they have been prescribed by a veterinary surgeon”.
But it knows that producers often go straight to the feed mill, which will write out the prescription, send it to the vet’s at the eleventh hour and put pressure on them to sign it immediately. We know that because a number of vets have complained to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate about just that.
Finally, the BPC says:
“Scientific evidence increasingly recognises that the problem of antibiotic resistance in humans comes largely from the use of antibiotics in human medicine.”
That is true, as I have already acknowledged, but for certain bacteria—salmonella, campylobacter and E. coli—the farm use probably accounts for more than half the problem. It certainly accounts for a very significant chunk of the problem. With MRSA, it is probably accounting at the moment for only a few per cent. of cases, but if it is allowed to get established in UK livestock, that situation could very easily change, and dramatically.
The briefing adds, approvingly, that the use of growth-promoting antibiotics was banned 10 years ago in this country. It is probably worth pointing out that that ban came into force only in 2006 and was vigorously opposed by the BPC at the time. Perhaps for that reason, the British Government of the time, initially at least, was the only EU member state Government to oppose the ban. That is another example, I would suggest, of the industry calling the shots on this issue.
I must acknowledge that, 12 months ago, the BPC agreed to introduce a voluntary ban on the use of cephalosporins in poultry production and to stop giving fluoroquinolones to day-old chicks. That does not go nearly far enough, but it is an important step forward and demonstrates an acknowledgment by the BPC, albeit a reluctant one, of the problem.
There is no excuse to delay. The warning has been there since 1945, when, on accepting his part of the Nobel prize in medicine for the discovery and isolation of penicillin, Alexander Fleming said that
“there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.”
If we continue to ignore this risk for fear of upsetting vested interests, we will be complicit in robbing future generations of one of the great discoveries of our species and propelling us—apologies for repeating myself—into a truly frightening, post-antibiotic age. It is surely time for the Government to act.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
For clarification to those participating in the debate, it will finish at 5.10 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate, which is on an important subject. I shall say at the outset that, although I just about heard all the many questions that he asked me, I can say with complete confidence that I fear that I will be unable to answer any—well, a large number of them—in my speech this afternoon, but I undertake to ensure that he receives full written answers to them all. As you will understand, Mrs Main, and as I am sure he will too, it is impossible to answer them all in this short debate, especially because it is such a technical matter, with so many important questions that require technical, detailed responses.
I must begin by saying that of course we all recognise that antimicrobial resistance poses a threat to human and animal health. I can assure my hon. Friend and others that the Government take this resistance very seriously. DEFRA and its agencies have been collaborating for many years with the Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency and the Food Standards Agency on this issue. The Government’s collective objective is to ensure that antibiotic use in animals does not become a significant clinical problem for human health. I am told that there is little evidence on antimicrobial resistance transmission routes from animals to humans. The concern is that if bacteria in food-producing and companion animals develop resistance to drugs used in human medicine, those could be transferred to humans via food or through direct contact.
Controls in the veterinary sector need to be carefully balanced to minimise undesirable animal welfare issues and not hamper the efficiency of UK food production in a way that could disadvantage the industry in relation to other countries where controls may be implemented less well or less effectively enforced. Good farm management, biosecurity measures and animal husbandry systems underpin the health and welfare of food-producing animals. When applied appropriately, they enable the use of antibiotics to be minimised. We all want and welcome that.
We agree that the routine use of antibiotics in animals is unacceptable. I am assured that relevant guidance and regulation is given to the sector to make that absolutely clear. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to consider whether current guidance on the responsible use of antibiotics can be strengthened to make it clear that the routine administration of antibiotics is not acceptable. I am also told that intensive farming systems do not necessarily use large amounts of antibiotics. Some have high health status livestock and so use very limited quantities of antibiotics.
The Government fully appreciate that effective controls are needed in the environmental, agricultural, food production, animal and human health sectors. Failure to act promptly and comprehensively could mean that we face impending problems with implications for animal health and welfare and knock-on effects for food supply and safety, as well as, ultimately, human health and patient safety.
Although the link between antimicrobial use in animals and the spread of resistance in humans is not well understood, there is scientific consensus that the use of antimicrobials in human medicine is the main driving force for antimicrobial-resistant human infections. The majority of resistant strains affecting humans are different from those affecting animals. Bearing that in mind, we have developed an integrated strategy to tackle the challenge of antibiotic resistance, and resistance to other antimicrobials, such as antifungals.
We have been working with DEFRA and other stakeholders to develop a new UK five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy and action plan, which we aim to publish shortly. The strategy will address all sectors, including veterinary use. To have maximum impact, the new integrated strategy will focus on a wide range of intervention measures to safeguard human and animal health, including: promoting responsible prescribing; improving infection prevention and control; raising awareness of the problem; improving the scientific evidence base; facilitating the development of new treatments; strengthening surveillance, and strengthening collaboration, data and technology.
There is general agreement that responsible prescribing is central to slowing down the development of antimicrobial resistance in humans and animals. Antibiotics, used responsibly, remain a vital part of the veterinary surgeons’ toolbox, without which animals suffering from a bacterial infection could not be treated effectively. The use of antibiotics in veterinary medicine is controlled by veterinary prescription and is equivalent to arrangements for humans. In that way, we are encouraging the responsible use of antibiotics and minimising their routine use.
In addition, the use of antibiotics as growth promoters has been banned in the EU since 2006, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park informed us. In the dairy industry, if a cow has been treated with antibiotics, the milk should be isolated, and there is regular routine testing of tanks to ensure that there are no traces of antibiotics. Those are some of the many checks in place to ensure that antibiotics do not get into the human food chain.
Zac Goldsmith
Antibiotic use on farms is increasing not decreasing, so despite the initiatives and efforts we have heard about, the trends are heading in the wrong direction. Will my hon. Friend commit on the record to reviewing and reading the references, with which I will provide her at the end of the debate, for all the points I made in my speech and checking the science behind them, so that she is certain that the brief she received from her Department is accurate?
Anna Soubry
I am more than happy to do all those things. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am no expert in this field and would not pretend to be for one moment. I shall make a very important point: my briefing does not come from the Department of Health only; we work in collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
One important thing about this debate is that my hon. Friend rightly asked for a Minister from the Department of Health to respond, so I am not, as others might have thought, someone from DEFRA. Many people are concerned about whether how an animal is treated has an impact on them if they consume some or part of it. Although we might not always make too many friends in the farming industry, we are all responsible for ensuring that we know what we are putting into our bodies and feeding our families. We bear that responsibility, so we need good, informed advice. Many people, but often those with the financial means to do so, will not buy fresh meat unless they know its antecedents—that it has come from a good butcher and a good beast.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for her openness to looking at more of the evidence that the hon. Member for Richmond Park presented. Having examined the greater body of evidence, will she also consider the need for legally binding measures as well as more information and awareness raising? The trends are going in the wrong direction, and we therefore need legally binding measures.
Anna Soubry
I am sort of grateful for that intervention; I fear that I could be in terrible danger of agreeing to do almost anything, and so would be able to do nothing else, because I would spend most of my time on this. I will do all that I can. It is very important. As individuals and parents, we all should be concerned, as many of us are, about what we eat and what we feed our children and loved ones. This is as much a public health issue as an animal welfare issue.
The Government have published a code of practice on the responsible use of medicines on the farm and a leaflet on antibiotics, which, like the above code, is on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s website. We just have to hope and pray that such things are read, but in my experience, responsible producers pay heed to all such advice. There are also regulations.
We continue to work actively with the farming industry to promote the responsible use of antibiotics in farmed animals, and industry organisations have also developed guidance. Furthermore, I am pleased to say that the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2011 will be changed this year to prohibit the advertising of antibiotic products to professional keepers of animals. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned, from January 2012, the British Poultry Council introduced a voluntary ban on the use of certain critically important antibiotics in chick production, which should be welcomed.
Veterinary use of antibiotics is also being addressed at a European level. It forms a significant component of both the 2011 EU action plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial resistance and the 2012 EU Council conclusions. The EU legislation on veterinary medicines is currently under revision, and the UK, with other member states and the Commission, is examining the available evidence to establish whether there is a need for additional controls on antibiotics used in animals. The Government will continue to press for measures to strengthen controls on antibiotics that are critically important for human health, to make it clear that they should be used for animals only when no effective alternatives exist.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate at DEFRA closely monitors the use of veterinary medicines in the UK. It analyses samples from food producing animals and their products for residues of veterinary medicines and environmental contaminants. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that food-producing animals form a reservoir of infection in the UK. Food is not considered a major source of infections resistant to antibiotics. Any bacteria associated with food or the environment can be reduced by thorough washing and cooking.
As I mentioned, the scientific consensus is that veterinary use of antibiotics is not a significant driver for human multiresistant infections. However, we are keen to see greater improvements in prescribing in all sectors and are actively working to encourage that. A wide programme of work to tackle antimicrobial resistance has been under way across the UK in the human and animal health sectors for several years. Although much has been achieved, I fully acknowledge that there are a number of areas that require attention and more radical thinking, if we are to have an even greater impact. I am confident that the new UK strategy will move us forward in that respect.
I undertake to write to any hon. Member who raised a question in the debate. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend and assure him that I will answer all his questions. It now seems that I will read a great many documents and other evidence, but it is important work. If I feel that there is any need to make any changes, I will make them.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Research Councils (Triennial Review)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. The triennial review of the research councils is one of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) scheduled to commence during the second year of the programme (2012-13). The review will commence at the beginning of January 2013. This is not a review of the policy relating to funding in research, to which the Government remain committed.
The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.
The first stage will:
Identify and examine the key functions of the research councils and assess how these functions contribute to the core business of BIS;
Assess the requirement for these to continue;
If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate;
If one of these options is continuing delivery through the research councils then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.
If the outcome of stage 1 is that delivery should continue through research councils then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that it is operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.
When completed the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Building Regulations Advisory Committee (Triennial Review)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. Triennial reviews are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that non-departmental public bodies continue to have regular challenge on their remit and governance arrangements.
The review will examine whether there is a continuing need for the committee’s function and its form. Should the review conclude there is a continuing need for the committee it will go on to examine whether the committee’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed.
Law Commission (Triennial Review)
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
In March 2011 the Government responded to the Public Administration Select Committee report “Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango state” setting out the coalition’s plans for reforming the public bodies sector. It includes the requirement to undertake triennial reviews of Executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).
The Law Commission is an independent statutory body with a mandate to keep the law under review and make recommendations for reform as appropriate. It was established as in 1965 by the Law Commissions Act 1965. Its remit covers the law of England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own similar, but separate, commissions.
To deliver the coalition Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability the Law Commission will be subject to a triennial review. The Ministry of Justice, as the sponsoring Department, has today launched a consultation, which will last until 6 February 2013, inviting views. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the review will consider the following:
the continuing need for the Law Commission—both its functions and its form; and
where it is agreed that it should remain, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
In conducting the triennial review, officials will be engaging with a broad range of stakeholders and users of the Law Commission. The review will be aligned with guidance published by the Cabinet Office: “Guidance on Reviews of Non Departmental Public Bodies”. The House will be notified of the conclusion of the review.
Transforming Rehabilitation
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
This Government are committed to an ambitious programme of social reform, even at a time of financial constraints. Major changes have already been delivered in welfare and education to tackle the challenge of endemic welfare dependence and educational underperformance, particularly in deprived areas. In the coalition agreement, the Government also promised
”to introduce a rehabilitation revolution”
to tackle the unacceptable cycle of reoffending, and today I am publishing a consultation paper entitled “Transforming Rehabilitation: a revolution in the way we manage offenders”.
This publication describes my proposals to reform the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in the community through a new focus on life management and mentoring support. I am also planning, for the first time, to extend rehabilitation to those released after serving sentences of less than 12 months, who currently get no support but have the highest reoffending rates.
Reoffending has been far too high for far too long. Despite significant increases in spending on probation under the previous Government, there has been little change in reconviction rates over the past decade. In 2010, nearly half (47.5%) of prisoners were reconvicted within 12 months of release. Failing to divert offenders away from crime has a huge impact. The cost to the Ministry of Justice of dealing with these offenders is considerable, with total expenditure on prisons and offender management standing at £4 billion in 2011-12. But it is not only expenditure on offender management; the National Audit Office estimated that the wider economic cost was as much as £13 billion in 2007-08.
The proposals in this paper extend provision to a greater number of offenders and increase the focus on rehabilitation. Given the challenging financial context, we will need to increase efficiency and drive down costs to enable us to do this. I therefore intend to begin a process of competition to open up the market and bring in a more diverse mix of providers, delivering increased innovation and improved value for money. To ensure that the system is properly focused on reducing reoffending and deploying more effective interventions, providers will in future only be paid in full when they reduce reconviction rates in their area.
We will not take any risks in protecting the public and the public sector probation service will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection and will manage directly those offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm to the public—this group will include MAPPA cases. They will also continue to carry out risk assessments for each offender, advise the courts and Parole Board and handle breach cases. The probation service performs a vital role in protecting the public and managing risk—I am determined to preserve that.
The great majority of community sentences and rehabilitation work will, however, be delivered by the private sector and voluntary organisations, which have particular expertise in this area. I am also keen to ensure that probation professionals currently within existing structures have scope to play a full role in the new rehabilitation provision. Providers will be commissioned to deliver community orders and licence requirements for most offenders in broad geographic areas, and will be paid by results to reduce reoffending. They will be expected to tackle the causes of reoffending and help offenders turn their lives around, for example, by providing mentors and signposting to housing, training and employment, and addiction and mental health services.
Our reforms will make use of local experience, and integrate with existing local structures. We want to introduce a system which allows for closer alignment of the variety of services which offenders use, through co-commissioning with other Government Departments, police and crime commissioners, and local authorities. Potential providers will have to evidence how they would sustain local partnerships in contracts.
These proposals will make a significant change to the system, delivering the Government’s commitment to real reform. Transforming rehabilitation will help to ensure that all of those sentenced to prison or community sentences are properly punished while being supported to turn their backs on crime for good—meaning lower crime, fewer victims and safer communities.
This paper includes the Government’s response to the March 2012 consultation “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”.
Copies will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and online at:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-rehabilitation.
UK G8 Presidency
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The UK’s priority during our 2013 presidency of the G8 is to drive jobs, growth and prosperity in the global economy. To achieve this, the UK will use its commitment to open economies, open Governments and open societies and work with our G8 partners to support free trade, tackle tax evasion and encourage greater transparency and accountability.
I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the letter that I have sent to my fellow OS leaders setting out in more detail the UK’s priorities.
Penfold Review
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
Today I am publishing a Government response to the consultation that closed on 24 August detailing proposals to simplify the process of applying for the stopping up or diversion of a highway, where this is required for the purposes of development.
The main options presented in the consultation were to permit applications for a stopping up or diversion order to be submitted at the same time as applying for planning permission and to devolve decision making to the local authority level.
The Government have decided not to devolve the stopping up and diversion order process to a local level. Consultation responses suggested that any devolution should be accompanied by a charging regime; additional costs and charges would be borne by both local authorities and those making applications, with no guarantee of a simpler or faster process. The Government do not feel that placing additional burdens on local authorities and costs on developers is right at this time. And the Government are aware that the speed of processing applications for stopping up or diversion orders has increased considerably in the last year. Additionally, we do not propose to reform or encourage a greater use of section 116 of the Highways Act 1980.
The Government continue to support the first option, to allow stopping up and diversion applications to be made alongside planning applications. The Government consider this will remove a significant barrier to growth, by speeding up the process and allowing a reduction of burdens on both applicants and local authorities, as both applications can be considered concurrently. Legislation currently in Parliament, as part of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, will give effect to this measure.
This Government response will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.
Grand Committee
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 51 : Sunset and review provisions
Amendment 26EA
“(2A) Prior to the subordinate legislation coming into force, the review of the effectiveness of the legislation as set out in subsection (2)(a) will receive the views of businesses, business organisations, civic organisations and trade unions, and any such organisations which the person considers appropriate.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I hope it will be thought appropriate that before discussing the first amendment, we should take note of the resignation announced today of the Minister formerly in charge of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Marland. Most people would agree that the noble Lord added a certain amount of colour and indeed, candour when he was on the Front Bench, and I thank him for his friendliness and assistance in the short period we worked together on this Bill. We wish him well in his continuing role as trade ambassador.
Although he is not in his place, I should also like to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to his new brief. I hope that he will enjoy his role on this Bill and, more generally, in relation to the department. We are, as it happens, near neighbours in Buckinghamshire. We sing tenor together in the parliamentary choir, and we also deal with the DCMS brief, although I am not sure whether he is continuing with that. We have plenty of reasons for wanting to keep in harmony and to support each other over the fraught times that we will undoubtedly face over this Bill and on other matters. If he is continuing with the DCMS brief, we will have only a short pause after today because we will be facing each other at the Dispatch Box on the Leveson report. It will not have escaped notice that the noble Viscount is the third person to occupy the position of Minister at BIS this Session, and I hope that he has a tenure more akin to that of his predecessor but one, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, than the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and that we will get though the remaining stages of this legislation without further changes.
Going through Hansard for the first four Committee days I counted 10 issues on which the noble Lord, the former Minister, suggested that a meeting or further discussion with officials might resolve a point raised in debate. Clearly little was going to happen during the Recess, but time moves on and I hope that the change in leadership of the Bill will not derail discussions which have been promised. Therefore, I wonder whether, in the spirit of working together on the Bill and to ensure that we have a successful resolution of the remaining stages, we can have an early meeting of the respective Bill teams. I should be grateful if the Minister will consider that.
Moving on to the amendment, in December 2010, the Government published a policy document entitled Reducing Regulation Made Simple in which they announced their intention that all new domestic legislation imposing a regulatory burden on businesses or civil society organisations would be required to include a review clause and a sunset clause. This reflected a commitment made in the coalition agreement to,
“impose sunset clauses on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed”.
In March 2011, they announced the publication of Sunsetting Regulations: Guidance, intended to,
“assist Departments in implementing the Government’s commitment to introduce sunset clauses in new regulations”.
The guidance covers the application of sunsetting and reviewing to new domestic regulations that impose burdens on business or civil society, including legislation implementing international regulatory obligations.
The aim of this policy is to remove regulatory burdens on businesses and civil society by ensuring that regulations are: subject to regular review, to determine whether the policy objectives that led to the introduction of the regulations still apply and whether regulation is still necessary in achieving those objectives; and that regulations which are unnecessary or burdensome are removed. We agree with that approach. However, we think that it should go further.
Amendment 26EA deals with the need for stakeholders to be given a statutory role. For example, the British Retail Consortium stated in its written submission to the Committee on the Bill in another place:
“We welcome the intention of the introduction of sunset clauses and other deregulatory measures in the Bill ... However, we are not optimistic that these will all deliver their potential, given our experience with the Red Tape Challenge and One in, One out. We need to see genuine sunset reviews when the term is up, with a formal role for stakeholders”.—[Official Report, Commons, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee, 12/7/12; col. 562.]
Businesses and other relevant stakeholders should surely be able to shape the Government’s thinking on business policy in general and sunset provisions in particular. It is of little help to businesses and the wider economy if somebody in Whitehall decides, unilaterally and without consultation, to apply sunset provisions when businesses or other groups might consider them to be successful or not in need of termination. We need to ensure that business policy is not dictated to businesses, but is produced in full consultation with them. In particular, we need to ensure that SMEs are heard: after all, in many respects, large organisations have the ear of the Government because they can employ public relations or lobby organisations.
It may well be argued that this amendment is unnecessary, as Ministers responsible for legislation and regulation will get the views of businesses, civic leaders and so on continuously. But it is interesting that paragraph 39 of the sunsetting guidance states:
“In carrying out reviews, departments will need to consider how best to gather information and views from businesses, civil society organisations, and others affected by the regulation”.
It goes on to note that, “a formal consultation may”— I emphasise “may”—
“form a valuable part of this process”.
Surely, this should be a duty on government and not left as a question of,
“how best to gather information and views from businesses, civil society … and others”.
It may well be appropriate for a proportionate approach to be adopted but certain minimum standards should certainly be present. We think it is important for businesses, business organisations, trade unions and other stakeholders to be assured that they will be consulted on sunsetting proposals. Business policymaking together, between the Government and relevant stakeholders, will always make for better legislation, regulation and policy.
I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 26EB. Like the other amendment to which I have just spoken, this is pro-business. In my role as a shadow Minister, I speak with businesses regularly and one common thing that businesses say is that, more than anything else, they require certainty from government. Provide businesses with a stable and certain policy environment in which government decisions are made—in consultation, obviously, with businesses and other stakeholders—adhered to and announced with sufficient time for businesses to plan and adapt, and businesses will have the ingenuity, entrepreneurial skill and flair to do their bit to boost the economy, create growth and provide employment opportunities.
Conversely, if there is an uncertain environment in which businesses are unsure of the general policy direction of the Government—if the Government lack a “compelling vision” for the economy, for instance, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently stated—and there are ad hoc, knee-jerk and ill thought-through policies announced without due consultation with businesses or sufficient time for them to adapt, investment and confidence will undoubtedly plummet.
In a nutshell, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that changes to non-urgent regulations, particularly the sunset provisions outlined in the clause, come into force or end their period in force on one of only two dates in a year. We have chosen 6 April and 1 October because these dates are already familiar to businesses from the regulatory environment.
The amendment is needed because the Government are not complying with their own principles. I gather that the April 2011 statement on new regulation did not give three months’ notice for any changes to regulations and that it even included changes which had occurred three months previously. As I understand it, the September 2011 statement of new regulation was backward-looking, hardly giving business time to prepare and providing no prior warning of regulation changes. There was hardly any progress with the April 2012 statement of new regulation, which again included no changes to regulations three months prior to their coming into effect but included some changes that had occurred four months earlier. This means that businesses do not have adequate time to plan, adapt and make use of what is coming along. Statutory muscle is needed here; that is the purpose behind this amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his generous and thoughtful opening remarks about colleagues. If I may take the recently appointed Minister’s opinions before the noble Lord knows of them, I am absolutely certain that, knowing his style, he will be very keen to continue meetings and dialogue with all interested Members of your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that will be uppermost in his mind as all Members of this House seek to improve legislation as we go forward.
Turning to the noble Lord’s amendment, I say from the outset that the Government are fully committed to the principle of engagement with stakeholders as part of a statutory review, as set out in the published sunsetting guidance. Reviews should draw on a range of evidence, including from those who are being regulated, the regulators, and those affected. It is already the case that the Minister responsible for the review is, under administrative law, obliged to consider any submissions made to him or her in relation to the review. In the view of the Government, a formal statutory requirement to receive views as proposed in the amendment would not change that position but would risk introducing additional and unnecessary administrative burdens.
For practical reasons, there needs to be sufficient flexibility for departments in deciding how to carry out the review, what evidence to use, and how to engage with those affected by the regulation. That could be inhibited if an additional statutory requirement were introduced. Effective engagement with stakeholders as part of the review can be delivered without additional statutory prescription, in a way that allows for an approach tailored to the circumstances of each review.
The Government are fully committed to the principle of common commencement dates for new domestic regulation affecting business. Where the regulation comes into effect on a common commencement date, the sunset date will, in accordance with the Government’s policy on sunsetting, also fall on a common commencement date. In the Government’s view, there is no need to prescribe this in legislation, as proposed in the amendment. Indeed, in some cases, there may be good reasons for temporary legislation to cease to have effect on a date other than 6 April or 1 October. That would be prevented by the amendment. The Government do not believe that there is a need to recast the statement of new regulation as a formal statutory requirement. There is also a risk that this would act as an unwelcome constraint, and make the statement less responsive to developing needs and priorities.
The most recent statement was published on 17 December, a full three months in advance of the April 2013 common commencement date. It provides a comprehensive summary of all the regulations affecting business that are to come into force in the first half of 2013. Regulations that will cease to have effect as a result of a sunset provision will be included in future statements.
The Government are a deregulatory government. Over the past two years, the Government have reduced the annual burden of domestic regulation on business by more than £800 million. By June 2013, a further reduction to more than £900 million is expected.
Based on the assurances that I have provided concerning the Government’s policy on the use of sunset and review provisions and related matters, I would be most grateful if the noble Lord would consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I note in respect of the first amendment that, while professing that the Government are fully committed to engagement, he still adheres to the idea that somehow by keeping flexibility in whether departments are required to carry out consultation the door is left open to maintaining a lesser standard than is required by the aspirations that he has expressed. We will need to keep this under review. Although I take the point that including a more formal structure for when regulatory statements start and stop might make it more difficult, there is still genuine feeling among businesses that it would be better if the Government would think more closely about the impact of how regulations apply and are started and stopped. We may need to come back to that, but, given what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“( ) providing for any of the following, as they apply for the purposes of provisions mentioned in paragraph (f), to apply with any modifications consequential on provision made under that paragraph—(i) sections 30 to 37;(ii) sections 62 and 63;(iii) Parts 3 and 4;(iv) Schedule 3.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, government Amendment 26F addresses a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report published on 15 November last year.
The committee recommended that the scope of the power in new Section 26B(2)(g) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which is inserted by Clause 52, should be narrowed. This power enables the Secretary of State to modify any provision of the 1990 Act as it applies in relation to heritage partnership agreements.
Heritage partnership agreements are voluntary agreements between owners and local planning authorities designed to help them to manage listed buildings more effectively and reduce the need for individual consent applications for minor or repetitive works. In response to the committee’s recommendation, Amendment 26F narrows the scope of this power to focus on specific provisions and parts of the 1990 Act which will need to be applied, as modified, in relation to heritage partnership agreements.
Heritage partnership agreements are voluntary agreements between owners and local planning authorities designed to help them manage listed buildings more effectively and reduce the need for individual consent applications for minor or repetitive works. In response to the committee’s recommendation, Amendment 26F narrows the scope of this power to focus on specific provisions and parts of the 1990 Act which will need to be applied, as modified, in relation to heritage partnership agreements.
While on the subject of heritage partnership agreements, I should like to place on record the Government’s response to concerns expressed at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about the application of Section 16(2) of the 1990 Act. Section 16(2) ensures that, in considering applications for listed building consent, special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting. Under new Section 26B(2)(f), the Secretary of State has a power to apply or reproduce any provision of Sections 10 to 26 and 28 of the 1990 Act, including Section 16(2), for the purposes of heritage partnership agreements.
I therefore assure noble Lords that we fully intend to reproduce Section 16(2) in the regulations we will be making in relation to heritage partnership agreements. We also undertake to consult on those regulations before they are made. I very much hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness about the points she made at Second Reading. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will be in a position to support Amendment 26F. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, at this stage, I would have expected—and the Committee might have welcomed—my noble friend Lady Andrews to speak to us. She has unparalleled expertise in this area, being chair of the relevant body, and a great deal of experience and knowledge. As the Minister mentioned, she spoke about these issues at Second Reading. Unfortunately, she is struck down with a lurgy. A couple of hours ago, I conversed with her—rather, I spoke and she grunted at the other end of a phone—and I was able to get some assistance in what we might say to the Committee in response to the amendments put forward today.
In relation to this amendment, my noble friend was very concerned that the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee should be enacted and I am happy to confirm that I will be able to say to her that that appears to have happened. The recommendation made was quite firm; namely, it considered new Section 26B(2)(g) to be inappropriate. The proposal now put forward seems to satisfy that requirement.
I am also very grateful to the Minister for reading out a section from a letter exchange with my noble friend Lady Andrews which gives the context for how those regulations as regards the heritage partnerships will be applied. I will be able to report to her that they have been indicated as she requested.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is indisposed. I very much hope that she will make a speedy recovery because there will be continuing amendments to which I would like to speak and which would involve the noble Baroness. Government Amendments 26G and 26H improve the operation of certificates of lawfulness of proposed works to listed buildings. This again was a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, at Second Reading. These amendments reflect the Government’s positive response. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have been in correspondence about these matters.
The certificates of lawfulness will provide a simple, light-touch mechanism for local planning authorities to confirm that listed building consent is not required in cases where proposed works would have no impact on the building’s special interest. As currently drafted, certificates could potentially last for ever but, at the same time, they do not offer the owner of the listed building absolute certainty that the works are lawful. This is not the result that the Government intended, which is why we have tabled Amendments 26G and 26H. These amendments provide that certificates last for a period of 10 years, during which time the lawfulness of any works for which a certificate is in force will be conclusively presumed. A new certificate may be applied for at the end of the 10-year period if required and, if the application is for a new certificate on effectively the same terms as an existing certificate, we envisage there being a light-touch reapplication process.
Amendments 26G and 26H will ensure both certainty for owners of listed buildings and flexibility to respond to changes over time in understanding about heritage significance. Amendments 26J, 26K and 26L make minor and technical amendments to Clause 53. They correct an anomaly in the current drafting by providing that the Secretary of State’s powers to prescribe the procedure for appeals in connection with certificates of lawfulness are exercisable by regulations rather than order. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I shall be brief about this. My notes from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, confirm that the two issues raised here are in accordance with those requested by English Heritage. The change from an indefinite period to 10 years, and the change to ensure that the certificates are lawful, will help considerably in trying to manage the properties with which the body is concerned. The changes allow a long enough period to be useful to the owner but will obviously reflect the fact that our views of heritage and our attitudes to it change over time and that, therefore, after about a 10-year period, it is appropriate for there to be a new application.
The noble Baroness also wanted a number of points to be made in relation to an exchange of letters that I mentioned in the earlier discussion, and I am happy that they have been mentioned here.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“( ) Works for which a certificate is issued under this section are to be conclusively presumed to be lawful, provided that—
(a) they are carried out within 10 years beginning with the date of issue of the certificate, and(b) the certificate is not revoked under section 26I.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“ In section 108 (compensation for refusal or conditional grant of planning permission formerly granted by order) after subsection (3E) insert—
“(3F) This section does not apply to the extent that the development referred to in subsection (1)(b) would, while permitted by a development order, have required conservation area consent under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.””
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, government Amendments 26M and 26N make minor and technical changes to Schedule 17 to the Bill. Amendment 26M relates to the policy given effect in the Bill to abolish conservation area consent. At the moment, the demolition of a building, subject to certain conditions, is a permitted development right under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. In order to implement the policy to abolish conservation area consent and instead require planning permission, we will have to amend this permitted development right so that the demolition of certain unlisted buildings in a conservation area will require planning permission.
However, the withdrawal of a permitted development right can in certain circumstances trigger a right to compensation under Section 108 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government’s view is that compensation for withdrawal of the permitted development right should not apply in these circumstances, as owners would have previously needed to obtain conservation area consent and so, in that sense, did not benefit from the permitted development right.
To prevent compensation being claimed in these circumstances, Amendment 26M amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to exclude development that would have required conservation area consent from the compensation provisions. I hope that noble Lords will support that amendment.
Amendment 26N ensures that all the heritage provisions in the Bill will be capable of applying to the Isles of Scilly as if they were a separate county. While the Bill will apply to the Isles of Scilly as part of England, we also need to ensure that all the heritage provisions will be able to apply to the isles as if they were a separate county, as is the case with existing planning legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“ In section 92(2)(b) (application to Isles of Scilly), after “Schedules 1, 2” insert “, 2A”.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“ In section 93(5) (orders subject to affirmative procedure), after “section” insert “26C,”.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, government Amendment 26P changes the procedure for making a national class consent order. Class consent orders will grant listed building consent for certain categories of work or buildings where the extent of the building’s special interest is well understood, without any need to make an application. The Secretary of State will have the power to make national class consent orders that will apply across England. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that this power should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Amendment 26P gives effect to this recommendation. It will apply the affirmative resolution procedure and ensure that national class consent orders will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
Perhaps I may respond to the concerns raised at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about the scope of national class consent orders. It is our expectation that national class consent orders will be used to describe specific works carried out by specific organisations in specific locations—for example, works to listed structures by the Canal & River Trust for the functioning of a canal. The Government do not envisage that a more generic national class consent will apply to broad categories of work across the board. We recognise the difficulties of identifying wider categories of work that could safely be carried out across the wide variety of listed buildings without causing some unintended damaging consequence. The provisions already contain the safeguard that requires the Secretary of State to consult English Heritage before making a national class consent order. Amendment 26P will provide additional assurance about the use of such orders.
Perhaps I may also address concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that the minimum annual review period for local class consent orders might prove so onerous that it would inhibit their use. The requirements in the Bill are broadly equivalent to those in force for local development orders, and there is no evidence to suggest that an annual review will be burdensome. The form of review will be prescribed by regulations. We intend to make the review a light-touch but important way of ensuring transparency and accountability. We will consult on the regulations before they are made. I hope that the noble Baroness, in her absence, and noble Lords will be reassured. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we are pleased with the amendment and grateful to the Minister for his contextual words. The recommendation brings into play a recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee. It is important because these national class consent orders were very broad. Although the committee recognised that there was a case for using secondary legislation for this, it was concerned that it needed a slightly higher level of consent. The amendment also fits in with the feelings of English Heritage on the matter, so we are in a good place and it was helpful to have the wider context laid out.
In his speech the Minister mentioned local class consent orders, which are not touched on in the amendment. Here we will register our disappointment that the proposal is not to revise or review the regularity of reporting, which will remain annual.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Of course I will write to the noble Lord along the lines that he suggests.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I must declare an interest, having been a founding commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its predecessor, the Disability Rights Commission.
The Government say that the objective of their commission reforms is to focus on the areas where it can add value because of its unique role and functions. I fear that the Government have yet to articulate what they consider this unique role and functions are and the basis for concluding that. Further, I fear that they have failed to explain why a commission with fewer powers and tools at its disposal will be more effective than one with the role and powers bestowed upon it by Parliament only six years ago. Today we are being asked to debate the commission’s role without clarity as to what the Government believe its functions to be. I hope that the Minister can explain this further to allay our concerns.
The Government have described Section 3 as a mission statement and have argued that its breadth has hindered rather than helped the organisation to define its purpose. We must assume from this that the aim of repealing Section 3 is to leave the commission with a narrower and more manageable role. A narrower role may be rightly achieved in two ways—by reducing the scope and issues with which the commission might engage or by reducing the scope of opportunities for the commission to engage with those issues. I see no evidence that the repeal of Section 3 would help to achieve the former.
Section 3 is to all intents and purposes an extrapolation of the duties in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, relating to equality, human rights and good relations. It plays an important role in binding and focusing the commission’s various duties, but it does not enlarge the canvas on which the commission is to operate. If the Government believe otherwise, I would be very interested to know from the Minister with which equality and human rights issues the commission would no longer be expected to engage.
From Section 3 it is also clear that Parliament did not foresee the task of achieving this vision as one for the commission alone. It envisaged the commission using its powers to provide leadership and to motivate others. The capacity of the commission to identify and agree priorities rests on internal leadership and external expectations, not on the law. So it seems more likely that alongside the wider legislative and non-legislative reforms, the repeal of Section 3 will concern the question of what the commission is empowered to do about equality and human rights. I wholly accept that the commission should improve its strategic focus, but it does not follow that it will be more effective by having fewer tools at its disposal. As Abraham Maslow said, if the only tool you have is a hammer you will see every problem as a nail.
The proposals before us are not simply legislative tidying. Rather, they sit alongside a range of other reforms that would fundamentally change what the commission is able to do. Already, the Government have taken away the commission’s helpline and ceased funding it to provide grants and to arrange conciliation. They have said they do not believe that the commission should provide guidance on the law to dutyholders because its promotional role prevents it doing so impartially.
The Bill proposes to change the frequency of the commission’s reporting on the state of equality and human rights from every three years to every five. It proposes to remove its good-relations duty—the only power that enables it to engage directly in relations between citizens. Separately, the Government have launched a review of the public sector equality duty. The views of the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on the Human Rights Act are well known.
We did not wish to create an enforcement factory in 2006, and I would guess that we do not wish to do so now, especially in a Bill to reduce the regulatory burdens on business. However, there is a risk that this is precisely what this package of reforms, including the repeal of Section 3, will result in.
In 2003, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its report on the case for a human rights commission, recommended:
“The commission we propose should not be seen as another inspectorate, advisory body, regulatory authority or enforcement agency. Nor should it be a body with an adversarial or litigious approach to its mission”.
Section 3 embodies this idea, placing the emphasis on promotion by requiring the commission to discharge its functions in a way that encourages and supports change—something of which I am very much in favour.
This approach also marked the convergence of thinking from the social model of disability, the Macpherson inquiry into the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence—today’s headlines in the Daily Mail are a potent reminder of its continuing relevance—and the concept behind the Human Rights Act: namely, that if as a society we wish to hold these values, we have to take proactive steps to make them a reality. It confirms the function of the organisation as an agent of social change, empowered to work with others and not tasked simply with answering complaints from those who feel that their rights have been violated—normally the most articulate. As Conservative MP James Brokenshire said in a debate in the other place, one function of the commission is to try to stop litigation and to encourage a culture in which there is not always a need for a litigious approach. I recall that this was one of the DRC’s most effective ways of working. It resulted in a seismic shift away from discriminatory practice towards disabled people, making it less necessary to go down the expensive litigious route.
The EHRC’s more celebrated initiatives derive from its ability to act beyond legal enforcement and to make recommendations on how society should take forward equality and human rights—for example, in its inquiries into the human rights of elderly people receiving care in their own homes, into disability healthcare and into the exploitation of workers in the meat-processing sector. In each case, the commission has identified the problem, investigated it thoroughly, convened the relevant parties to explore what needs to be done and made recommendations for policy and legislative reform.
Uncovering scandals in society that we would not otherwise know about and need to put right is the hallmark of a modern commission. Do the Government view such activity as campaigning? Is it not right that the commission should support progressive legal cases such as that of Sharon Coleman, which secured protection from discrimination for 6 million carers in the UK? Is the Minister suggesting that the commission should not have a role as an adviser to Parliament on equality and human rights implications of public policy and legislation? Should the commission not draw our attention to rights, risks, violations, discrimination or inequality, or propose to us how these might be remedied?
How do we imagine the commission will perform its role as the independent mechanism required by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, promoting, protecting and monitoring implementation of the convention, if it cannot recommend policy and legislative reform? I look forward to the Minister’s response to all these questions.
The fundamental distinction between a campaigning organisation and the proper role of a body such as the commission is that the latter must act consistently within its statutory authority as mandated by Parliament and in the public interest. Section 3 of the Equality Act exemplifies the values which made me a keen supporter of the commission, and I felt that it was the right time for the DRC to be part of a wider, united enterprise. Those values lie at the heart of what others, too, respect it for.
In their summary of responses to the consultation on reform of the commission, the Government noted:
“The majority of respondents were opposed to repeal and were concerned about losing the guiding principles and values set out in the general duty, which had been debated in Parliament during the passage of the Equality Act 2006”.
In a nutshell, Section 3 says to us, “We are all in this together”. By bringing together equality and human rights, it departed from the idea of people being defined only by their differences—their gender, disability, age or race, for example—to that of people being defined by their common humanity. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, Section 3 echoes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states clearly that,
“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
The inclusion of dignity in the commission’s general duty provides the glue to bind together anti-discrimination and human rights. This is not about equality as sameness and uniformity, but the pursuit of dignity and substantive freedom for each and every individual based on recognising and accommodating difference. The values set out in Section 3 are not new; they are not even contested. As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, a great campaigner for disability rights, said of Section 3 during the passage of the Equality Act:
“From a one-nation viewpoint, I have no difficulty at all with the general duty in clause 3—that is what most of us are in politics for”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/05; col. 1331.]
They are enduring but adaptable values which help us navigate a path through our modern, open and plural society while staying true to our traditions of family, community, liberty, tolerance and fair play. In these most difficult times, it is more important than ever that we do not cast such values to the wind. My amendment is very simple: it would put Section 3 of the Equality Act back where it belongs. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I recently put my name down to this amendment at the instance of the TUC. It is one of the many bodies that have written to us, including the Law Society and other organisations, which are very concerned at the requirement in this Bill to remove the general Section 3 duty from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The general duty is very important. It is essential because it requires the EHRC to encourage and support a society based on freedom from prejudice and discrimination; individual human rights;
“respect for the dignity and worth for each individual”;
and on having an,
“equal opportunity to participate in society”,
and a,
“mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for … human rights”.
A recent report from the European Commission on national equality bodies said:
“In order to … realise their potential in promoting equal treatment for all, equality bodies should develop a vision of their role within the administrative culture and society”.
This is exactly what Section 3 does. Furthermore, it provides a guiding vision for the EHRC that unifies equality and human rights.
Section 3 of what became the Equality Act 2006 was extensively debated within Parliament during its passage and its final drafting, from which this Bill takes a piece away, was agreed by all the parties participating. There is very general agreement around what we are proposing. I hope therefore that the Government will think very seriously about what was set before us so eloquently, if I may say, by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. It really is terribly important for all kinds of groups to ensure that the general duty in the Equality Act is maintained in this Bill. To leave this provision in the Bill would threaten a lot of the work that the EHRC has done. That would be an awful shame. Certainly, a lot of bodies have written to us to say, “Please, please don’t let them get away with this. We don’t want this to happen”. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen very seriously to what has been said and accept what we are proposing.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because I do not support the removal of the commission’s general duty. The Government say that it is too broad, then go on to say that there is nothing in Section 3 that is not sufficiently covered elsewhere in the Act—in other words, that it adds nothing. Yet if it adds nothing, it cannot be too broad. You cannot have it both ways. Again, the Government say that Section 3 is aspirational and that there is no way that the commission can accomplish all that is encompassed in it but, again, that is at odds with the argument that the same ground is covered elsewhere in the Act.
No institution can achieve all that it was set up to do all at once; there would otherwise be no reason for it to go on existing. Yet that is no reason not to have a statement of aims or objectives to indicate the direction of travel or guide the commissioners in framing their actions. On balance, the commission concludes that removing Section 3 is unlikely to have much practical effect. The Government have made great play with that, but the commission agrees that a unifying statement of principle is important and that it is beneficial to have a vision or mission statement, such as is provided by Section 3, for symbolic if not for practical reasons. However, if its inclusion has symbolic value, is it not the case that its removal will have symbolic significance also?
This, I think, is the nub of it. The repeal of Section 3 is just part of the Government’s broader attack on the EHRC. The commission’s statutory remit was the product of cross-party agreement when the Equality Act 2006 was passed. Indeed, the original wording was amended in the House of Lords to take account of Conservative concerns that it was too broad.
What has changed in the past six years to make it no longer appropriate for the commission to have the general duty set out in Section 3? I will tell you what has changed. The Government have changed. The commission is charged with championing the cause of those who are the victims of prejudice and discrimination on the part of those in positions of power and privilege and with promoting a more egalitarian society. This does not always go down too well with those in positions of power and privilege. We all know that anything with the words “human rights” in it is like a red rag to a bull to the right-wing of the Conservative Party. The Government have decided to throw the dismantling of the EHRC as a bone to their right-wing. Labour in another place has described this as abolition of the EHRC by stealth, but I am not sure what is so stealthy about it. Already, in relation to its grant-making function, the commission’s helpline and conciliation functions—the very things which ensure that it remains anchored in the realities of life with which it needs to engage—have been removed. The Bill proposes also to remove its good relations duty—something else which helps it to remain grounded. By 2014-15, it will have had its budget reduced by 62%, a far bigger cut than is being imposed anywhere else in the public sector, and will have lost 72% of its staff.
Separately, the review of the public sector equality duty, one of the most powerful engines for change and progress on the equalities front, has been brought forward. Taken together with those changes, the removal of the general duty can be seen for what it is: part of a sustained attack on the equality agenda in our society and the institutions which exist to promote it. Of course, the Minister will tell us that the Government are fully committed to equality and that the Bill is just about housekeeping and legislative tidying up, but I am reminded of an occasion when I had been rather critical of someone’s organisation. When he challenged me about it, I replied—rather lamely, I fear—that I meant no ill will, to which he said, “But if you tell me something is chocolate pie but it tastes to me like cardboard, what am I supposed to think?”.
The heads of justice, the Fawcett Society, Mind, the Refugee Council, the Equality Trust and others have expressed opposition to those changes in an open letter, stating that they will leave the EHRC a weaker body. In their consultation paper of March 2011, the Government state that Section 3 has no specific legal function, but that is not correct. The eminent lawyer, Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, who was co-author of the Cambridge independent review of the enforcement of UK anti-discrimination legislation, which is the foundation stone of much of the equality legislation of the past decade, has issued to a memorandum in which he set up three reasons for thinking that.
First, in the absence of a purpose clause in the Equality Act 2010, the courts and others enforcing the Act were able to use Section 3 as a guide to the interpretation of the single Equality Act, enabling them to fill gaps and resolve ambiguities. The absence of a purpose clause in the single Equality Act is less important than it might otherwise have been because of the EHRC’s general duty set out in Section 3 of the 2006 Act. He says that the repeal of Section 3 will deprive those applying the law of interpretive principles and will leave equality law rudderless. It increases the likelihood of inconsistencies in the way in which the single act is applied.
Secondly, repeal will remove the unifying principle linking equality and other fundamental human rights. Respect for and protection of each person’s human right is at the core of the EHRC’s general duty and implicitly underlies the specific rights against discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and the positive duty to advance equality, which are set out in the Equality Act 2010. Professor Hepple cites the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who was chair of the advisory committee to the Cambridge review in the debates on the Equality Act 2006, as emphasising the importance of equality as a fundamental human right to be enjoyed together with other human rights—civil and political, and economic and social—and of promoting a culture of human rights. The Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 seek to overcome the fragmented approach to different strands of discrimination, which Professor Hepple says has characterised British legislation in the past. Repealing Section 3 will undermine the historic unification of equality and human rights law which was achieved under those Acts.
Thirdly, taken in the context of all the proposed changes, the proposed repeals are likely to further weaken the EHRC’s case for accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the ICC, as an “A” status body in full compliance with the Paris principles, which Ministers have consistently said is a high priority for the UK Government. The International Council on Human Rights Policy has emphasised:
“The most effective national institutions generally have a broad and non-restrictive mandate … an all-encompassing jurisdiction”,
and “adequate budgetary resources”.
The EHRC’s “A” status is already being questioned. In a letter from the ICC chair, Dr Mousa Borayzat, to the Home Secretary, Dr Borayzat suggests that the Government should use the opportunity of the present Bill not to weaken the EHRC but to strengthen the provisions in the Equality Act 2006 related to the commission’s independence. This letter was part of correspondence between the UN and the British Government, centring on the UN’s concerns that the Government’s approach to the commission might compromise its independence and thus jeopardise its national human rights institution status.
The Government argue that Section 3 does not cover any ground that is not perfectly adequately covered by the EHRC’s core equality and human rights functions in Sections 8 and 9. But there are reasons for thinking that repeal of Section 3 could well have the effect of making the commission’s duties at Sections 8 and 9 more vulnerable to judicial review on the ground of challenges based on the proper statutory remit of the commission, thus handing power to the courts to determine the EHRC’s scope and weakening the influence of Parliament.
Of course, Section 3 is susceptible to judicial review. But the lesson from elsewhere, particularly Northern Ireland, is that the more specific and less general the duty, the more susceptible to challenge it becomes. Related to this point, in the absence of Section 3, there is little by which to judge whether the duties under Sections 8 and 9 are sufficient as they become freestanding and detached from any specified outcomes or overarching purpose, thus making further reform of the commission’s duties and powers more straightforward. This is of particular concern given that the terms of reference of the review of the public sector equality duty include the EHRC’s duties and powers in relation to the duty.
The appeal of Section 3 signifies that the Government have no great love for the EHRC. It is opposed by many highly reputable organisations that are in a good position to know about these things. The courts will be deprived of a road map for interpreting the legislation. That legislation will be stripped of its unifying principle linking equality and other fundamental rights. The commission’s standing as an “A” status national human rights institution will be weakened. The commission will also be rendered more liable to judicial review. In the light of all that, I do not believe that the repeal of Section 3 has anything at all to be said for it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 27 and associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and other noble Lords who tabled it. I will try not to repeat anything that has been said. I, too, am dismayed and frankly puzzled that the Government are proposing to remove Section 3 and the general duty on the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This was discussed at some length in 2006. That was before my time in this House, but I followed the debate very closely. It was a relatively short time ago and all parties at the time agreed to these principles. I understand that the objectives were discussed extensively with business, NGOs and others in the field.
I will draw attention to one interesting quote. Eleanor Laing MP, speaking as shadow Minister for women and equalities, said:
“The important thing about clause 3 is that we all admire the aspirational nature of the general duty within it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/05; col. 36.]
If we fast forward to the present day, we see that having a wide-ranging, aspirational duty is seen as a hindrance to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in carrying out its work effectively. In briefings that I have attended it has been mentioned that the duty is too wide-ranging and that the commission is not able to focus sufficiently on a narrower remit. I apologise for not declaring an interest: I was a commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission for three years until last month.
I would like to know what has changed. I still have not heard any compelling or rational argument about what has changed, and why it is proposed that the commission should no longer have a duty to promote work to eliminate prejudice and hate towards these protected groups. What has changed in our society since this relatively new Act, which is still bedding down, came into force? Are we a more equal society? Has something happened that some of us may have missed? Is racism declining? Is hate crime falling? As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, mentioned, just today we read in the newspapers that Stephen Lawrence’s brother has launched a legal battle against the Metropolitan Police, claiming to have been stopped by the force up to 25 times purely because of his skin colour. This is still a very common experience for many black and Asian people. This comes at a time when one in five young men—21%—in young offender institutions identifies himself as Muslim, compared with 13% in 2009-10. We have 60% unemployment among young black men. Race and disability hate crime is unfortunately still rising. What has changed such that we need to take away the general duty from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
I would also like to know what is wrong with promoting good relations. Why is that now seen as a hindrance to the commission’s work? What is wrong with promoting good relations between different sections of society? No other statutory body has this remit. If it were to be taken away who would do this work? Who would show the leadership that is needed to tackle these issues? Who would understand them? Which non-government statutory body would be able to take this up? I strongly suggest that this is not the time to weaken the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s remit.
Is this the time to be sending out negative signals, which were mentioned earlier, and to be seen watering down and neutering this country’s main race, equality and human rights watchdog? I have heard it said in briefings that this will make no difference. If this is to make no difference, why are we doing it? Surely it is better to have a wider remit that is aspirational and that allows the commission the freedom to tackle some of these issues and carry out in-depth reviews, as has been done before. What is wrong in allowing this to happen? Surely the perception and the signal that not allowing it sends out is that this Government do not value race equality, or equality for disabled people and other protected groups.
On the issue of good relations, it has been repeatedly pointed out in briefings that since its inception the commission has not always functioned properly. There were problems and nobody can duck that, but it has made huge strides in the last few years. The organisation has reformed and slimmed down a lot, and in its work has been far more strategic and effective than in some other reviews that have been carried out. It is important to note that promoting good relations between members of different groups has allowed the commission to work in relation not just to race, but with groups such as Gypsies and Travellers who, sadly, do not have the protection that other groups have. It has been able to look at interfaith relations and hate crimes, as mentioned; causes of violence against women; intergenerational issues; and highly stigmatised groups, such as people with mental health problems or HIV/AIDS. These are serious issues that need to be tackled. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is best placed to understand interracial and inter-religious tensions and advise on the best way that they can be addressed. In proposing the removal of these clauses the Government are doing more damage than they realise.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Baroness has just said. One of the first things that I did when I joined the House of Lords was to speak in favour of admittedly a similar aspiration provision, but in my view appropriately. It might have been on an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in legislation in 2000. The concept eventually found its way into the 2006 Act.
When Parliament agreed this provision it was on the basis of discussion with a wide range of organisations. It was widely welcomed. Why? We do not have a fair and unprejudiced society. It may be that everyone in this room is fair-minded, but fairness and good relations between groups do not exist when, for example, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people are harassed about where they can live. The noble Baroness mentioned that young people now describe themselves as Muslim in larger numbers. Gypsy and Traveller children dare not describe themselves as Gypsies and Travellers, because of the things that have happened to them.
We have a society in which children with disabilities are bullied in school. Members of minority groups that make up our society are denied jobs because of stereotyped expectations. Old people are despised and neglected. The ordinary self-respect that people need, particularly children, is undermined. This is at the expense of social cohesion and an ordinarily decent society. I support this group. I think that it is necessary to give the EHRC a proper strategic approach to help bring about a fair society.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am very glad of the opportunity to intervene briefly in this debate and should declare an interest in regard to my involvement with Mencap Wales, Autism Cymru and a number of other disability organisations. I congratulate warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on introducing this important amendment. I agree with what she said, as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Low.
I recall the battles in the 1990s to establish disability rights. Those battles were led by Lord Ashley, Lord Morris, John Hannam and others, across party boundaries, because of the importance of enshrining in law the principles of rights. My fear is that we are in danger of a movement backwards today.
The general duty is necessary to avoid regulatory gaps or the effect of overlaps. Rather than being repealed, it should, if anything, be amended to establish more clearly the EHRC’s overriding purpose, powers and duties and to support the focus on being an equality regulator and a general human rights institution.
I have concern also about the proposal to move from a three-year to a five-year progress report cycle. There is a real danger here that if the cycle were to start coinciding with the electoral cycle, we could find many of these issues becoming politicised, which is in nobody’s interest. I have further reservations about the repeal of the conciliation powers, which would amount to the loss of the EHRC’s wide-ranging, background role in monitoring the effects of legislation.
The Government need to make a very strong case for repealing Section 3 as the Bill proposes, and I doubt that they can do so. If they are not prepared to think again between now and Report, we should support similar amendments at that stage in the Chamber in order to give the EHRC and all involved in disability the strongest possible messages.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I apologise to the mover of the amendment that I was not present when she spoke. I shall be extremely brief, because I explained at Second Reading that nothing in this clause would remove any of the commission’s powers or functions and why I regarded what was being deleted as not harming, but improving, the performance of the commission.
The general duty arose not in the 2010 Act but in the 2006 Act, and the 2006 Act unfortunately put the cart before the horse, as some will remember. Instead of doing what was done in the 2010 Act, which was to reform the underlying discrimination law and bring it all together, the then Government instead put the cart before the horse by setting up a commission without having reformed the underlying law. They put into the 2006 Act this general duty, which is unenforceable and purely aspirational—for those who pull faces when I say that, I remind them of the aspirational language, which is very fine but not capable of being enforced in any court of law. What they did in addition to that, and which is unaffected by the Bill now before the Committee, was to put in Section 8:
“The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part … promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity … encourage good practice in relation to equality and diversity … promote equality of opportunity … promote awareness and understanding of rights under the equality enactments … enforce the equality enactments … work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination, and … work towards the elimination of unlawful harassment”.
That is in Section 8 and is unaffected by anything in this present Bill. They then went on in Section 9, also unaffected by this Bill, to provide that:
“The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part … promote understanding of the importance of human rights … encourage good practice in relation to human rights … promote awareness, understanding and protection of human rights, and … encourage public authorities to comply with section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998”.
Those are completely intact, as are all the enforcement powers given to the commission under the 2010 Act. Rather like the socio-economic disadvantage rhetoric that the Government have rightly not sought to rely on, all that has been taken away in the general duty is the following:
“The Commission shall exercise its functions under this Part with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which … people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination ... there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights … there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual … each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights”.
Everybody in the Committee would agree with those sentiments, but the point that I make as a lawyer, for which I do not apologise, is that none of that is capable of being enforceable in any way. A duty that is written in water—it is clearly aspirational—may make us all feel joyful but it is not sensible to have it in legislation for a commission that in the past, as many in this Room will know, has been distracted by an overbroad and vague mandate. It is time that the new commission, as it were, concentrated on what it is meant to do, which is strategic law enforcement and everything else associated with that. I know that I am in a minority in this Committee but I for one consider that it is perfectly legitimate to get rid of Section 3, while retaining intact all the commission’s powers and statutory functions.
Baroness Whitaker
Does the noble Lord think that there is no place at all in the whole of statute for aspirational or declaratory law? Is he sure that there is none?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My difficulty is that I cannot see what is added in Section 3 to what is mentioned in the other sections. Can it be explained why stating general aspirations of the kind that one finds in international conventions on human rights adds anything to the work of the commission? I am talking not about perception but reality; I realise that perception matters but in reality the Committee should face the fact that nothing in this Bill is taking away any of the commission’s functions. The commission itself has rightly said that it does not regard the removal of Section 3 as damaging to its work.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, it is very seldom indeed that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lester. I call him my noble friend because he has been a friend for so many years. However, on this occasion I must disagree with him, and my reason for that goes right back to the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. How long ago was that? It is a considerable number of years. Are we entirely happy with how equal opportunities have proceeded? Has it all been achieved? I would certainly argue not yet. There is a heck of a lot to catch up on and to have accepted.
That is exactly why I recommend very strongly the amendment that has been moved, and spoken to so brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well say that it is all written out there, but there is a section that can help the commission to talk to the different groups, get them together, and take them through the processes that might make their advancement as individual groups or as part of the community much more acceptable. That is a strong reason why we should retain this section. I will spend no more time than that on it but I feel very strongly that we need to retain this section.
Lord Ouseley
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on moving this amendment and on her very powerful introduction. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, missed that because it really represents the difference between what the victims of discrimination, whose rights are being eroded, want for a commission, and what a lawyer wants for an organisation that is a highly esteemed body, which can be looked at and admired, but is not reaching the people’s needs. That is what Section 3 and its retention represents for us who sit here opposing what is proposed in this Bill. That also helps to answer the question posed on many occasions about the notion that it would not make any difference.
We do not have any clarity about what the Government want to see the EHRC doing and how that relates to how people in our society—whether they are disabled or on the grounds of age, race, ethnicity or other characteristics—feel about a body such as this not meeting or responding to their needs, or giving any leadership or indications about how society can move forward in healing the problems that are afflicting the many people with those characteristics and who are affected by discrimination and the erosion of human rights.
We already know how far the EHRC has gone backwards in the aspirations that a lot of people had for it. That is not a criticism to suggest that it has not done good work because it clearly has, but it could have done so much more. To a large extent, I do not have any disagreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said but I believe that Section 3 is an important aspiration. It is absolutely right to say that it is a statement of purpose and it is very broad. For me, it enables the commission to do the sort of things in a flexible way—notwithstanding the way in which it is required to be strategic—which enable people on the ground to identify with it. That is the worst part of the past four or five years of watching the way in which the predecessor bodies faded into obscurity when the new body came on stream and lost contact with people on the ground. That is where I am addressing my concerns.
I see the general duty as a statement of purpose and a mission statement. In no way do I see it as constraining the EHRC from doing what it needs to do or what it has to do, while recognising the constraints imposed upon it by government and the limitations of its resources. That is the killer constraint, which I think will determine what exactly it will do in the years ahead. No justification has been put forward for removing Section 3, other than the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The loss of the notion of promoting good relations is very serious. I see promoting good relations as a common thread of connectivity across the diverse protected characteristics. It underpins the fundamental requirement of a body such as the EHRC to promote better knowledge and understanding of equality and human rights issues, to counter myths and prejudices with facts and to encourage good community relations across the diverse competing interests, which is quite considerable.
Should the EHRC have no role whatever in challenging policies, proposals and activities that damage community relations? Should it never challenge the Government? Clearly the Government would like an EHRC that never challenged their policies and activities. However, if the commission is not able to challenge, who will do that? This is the politics of madness at a time when tensions are rising, conflicts are on the increase, austerity is feeding prejudices, frustrations and anxieties, and blame and scapegoating are dominant features of everyday culture. Who is seeking to counter any of this? Should the EHRC not take on some of this activity? If not, why not?
The general duty is a binding and unifying concept that intertwines equality and human rights. It guards the fundamental role of the EHRC. The reason for the removal in Clause 56 of Section 3 is to weaken further the EHRC and heighten its impotence in the eyes of many people who need an effective EHRC to champion their rights and assist them in building good relations, tackling inequality and promoting human rights.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, one of the disadvantages of being around as long as I have is that you observe the tide flowing in and flowing out—ebbing and flowing. I have followed the equality debate, participated in it and in some instances been a victim of it over many years. Tides such as progress in equality need to be measured. The section that we are debating is as good a measurement as one could get. The progress that we seek will be advanced by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She advocates that the retention of Section 3 is an absolute requirement. The question is not just for those outside the debate but for those who are part of it.
Section 3 is the quality control mechanism by which the Act can be judged from time to time. However, it has a much wider purpose. It can be the section by which the Government’s commitment, activity and purpose in this field are judged. The proposal to repeal Section 3 is equivalent to the referee blowing the final whistle before the match has ended. It should not be the case, when debate is still going on and before it is concluded, that the key mechanism by which we can measure progress and draw some conclusions is under threat. That is why it is important that, whatever emerges in legislative terms from the Bill, Section 3 is retained. The message that its removal would send would downgrade all the other aspirations of the Bill.
Many pioneering people have made valuable contributions. However, as we have heard in the debate and read in the press, we have not abolished discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability or otherwise. There is still a job to be done. I do not believe that at this point removing the general duty would enhance confidence in the Government’s commitment to the whole issue of discrimination. The job is not done. There is much more to do. In the best tradition of the way in which your Lordships’ House is able to engage all strands of opinion, I believe that on this issue the Government should take note and retain Section 3. It is not just a question of how others would be measured; it is a question of how the Government would be measured and judged. I support the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I appreciate the passion and commitment that my noble friend Lady Campbell brought to this amendment and I share her absolute commitment to the aims and objectives of the commission. I have just finished a six-year stint as a commissioner. I was there from the beginning, when the noble Baroness was a co-commissioner with me.
The commission’s aims are beyond dispute and I support them completely, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that removing Section 3 is not of any great significance. There are things that are much more important in ensuring that the commission’s work will continue, improve and be clearer in the future. I do not think that the section does any harm, but I also do not think that it is terribly important if it goes.
A sad thing is the overriding view that seems to be around now, perhaps in government and perhaps everywhere else, that the commission has failed. I challenge that, as I think that the commission has done some excellent work during the six years that I have been there, in spite of enormous difficulties in trying to meld a whole lot of additional categories of people to be protected, as well as the original protected groups, with the people representing those groups feeling that they were going to be in some way diluted. That has made life very difficult in the commission, but I think that many of those difficulties have been overcome.
Society as a whole still has huge problems—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, about that. We still have racism and there is still a stigma attached to disability and so on. However, there have been major achievements in the recognition of that, in the ability to speak about it and in the protection of many people who were not protected before. There have been a lot of improvements. The work of the commission should not always be criticised as vague and not achieving anything, as there have been some significant achievements. I say that on behalf of colleagues and former colleagues who have done the majority of that work, which I think needs to be recognised.
The fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will in future scrutinise the commission’s business plan and there will be increased parliamentary involvement—for example, the pre-appointment scrutiny of the new chair—is a big improvement. We have been looking at all the things that still need to be done as if everything is totally negative, but having experienced six years of the commission I think that quite a lot has been very positive, including greater transparency about the Government’s funding decisions.
It will be sad if the general duty goes, as removing it is not a huge priority, but I do not think that it will affect the work of the commission. To that extent, I do not think that the Government have to worry too much. We have to work hard to ensure that the commission’s aims are met in the future. More specific duties and responsibilities ought to be useful in improving the situation and making sure that the aims are met. I am sorry if I am in a minority here, but I am passionate about what the commission stands for and I want to acknowledge some of the good things that have happened in the six years during which I have been involved in its work.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, despite the legal view presented by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I refer us back to some of the words spoken by my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. She said that the inclusion of dignity in the commission's general duty provides the glue to bind together anti-discrimination and human rights. I think I got that right. I agree with that and other important points that she made in her eloquent speech. Such an approach underpins the accepted goal of living with dignity and independence. As such, Section 3 is critical in providing coherence to the commission’s duties to promote equality and human rights. I was involved with one of the commission’s predecessor organisations, the Disability Rights Commission, in a major inquiry conducted into discrimination in access to health services by people with learning disabilities or mental illness. It indeed found discrimination; it was very effective and led to some improvements in access to healthcare for those groups. It is very important that such issues continue to be seen as a priority and investigated.
I worry that, without Section 3, that priority may be lost. I oppose the removal of Section 3. It has an important role in focusing the commission’s various duties, and I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend.
Baroness Prosser
My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I have been fired up by comments made. I start by declaring an interest as having spent six years, until the beginning of December 2012, as the deputy chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I shall be brief. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, are not alone in considering that the loss of the section would not cause any harm. Obviously, I respect the right of people to hold a different view, but I make the point that there is a long history in legislative terms of overarching statements of intent being extremely useful to judges and others when determining the meaning of legislation—so, even on that level, it has a value. I run with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Low, especially in his comments that this has a symbolic value. In this country, we are far from being able to consider that there is no further need for symbols, promotion, ideas, excitement or energy about the equality agenda. We are lacking that in great amount at the moment. We need to be as positive as we can about the need for an equality programme within our society. We continue to need to encourage and explain to people the value to society as a whole of the equality agenda.
Finally, having been deputy chair for six years, it is unsurprising that I take exception to some of the comments made about the equality commission, many of which seem to me to be based on myth upon myth. I agree that there have been issues and problems far too complicated and outside the remit of the equality commission to go into here. Equally, I would say that there is a tendency on the part of many to look back at the pre-Equality and Human Rights Commission era and look at the previous commissions through rose-coloured glasses. People involved in each of the three commissions have done that. This has not been a steady or an easy path since the 1960s, when legislation was first introduced to try to address some of these issues. We need to be careful about making comments about the role of the EHRC in recent years without making sure that we are really clear about the issues, why they have arisen and what has been done to try to detract from them. I support this amendment because it is part of a programme of encouragement of a society becoming more equal, understanding and tolerant.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, it is significant that it has taken an hour and 10 minutes to get to this point. Noble Lords across the Committee feel very strongly about this and I suspect about some of the other amendments that the Government are proposing to this part of the Bill.
We have heard some wonderful speeches this afternoon, including the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and sometimes they show aspiration and emotion. The speeches show that these things matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, makes some technical analysis about the effects of removing Section 3. I am surprised that such a distinguished campaigner as the noble Lord is out of step on this particular matter.
I do not need to say much more. On these Benches we support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Low, in these amendments. I expect that the Minister will pray in aid evidence given to the committee that the EHRC has stated that it does not object to these changes in its remit. I confess that I was surprised when I read that. However, we must look at this matter in the context in which those remarks are made. In addition to the proposals to amend the legislative basis of the EHRC, the Government are also undertaking a range of actions that seriously threaten its independence and effectiveness. A few weeks ago the Government published a review of the public sector duty, most of whose members as far as I can see are from either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrat party, or they are officials from the GEO. I do not know if they will be taking evidence. If they are, I hope that those who are interested in this matter will tell them what their views are about it.
In the context of this proposal, I ask the Minister if it would not have been better to wait before abolishing the general duties and making these changes to see what the review of the public sector duty proposes, since the Government have used its existence to defend precisely this proposal. Does the Minister think that we are in danger of both these duties being abolished? What effect does she think that will have on the work of the EHRC?
In the Third Reading of the Bill in the Commons, my honourable friend Kate Green said:
“There is still racism and there is still religious hatred. There are still women who … are victims of violence, or who are at risk of it. All those groups continue to suffer from derogatory language, discriminatory behaviour, prejudice and public hostility. It is quite wrong to think that we do not need to continue to protect in legislation a positive duty to promote and improve good relations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/12; col. 253]
The Minister argued that since the EHRC is bound by the public sector equality duty in Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010, it will still have a duty to consider the need to take steps to promote good relations and activities. Given that we know that the future of this duty is in doubt, I wonder if it is not better to shelve these proposals right now and wait until we see what happens. How is this going to be resolved? If this is taken together with the fact that the EHRC will have its budget cut by 62%, as had been mentioned, and will have lost 72% of its staff compared to when it was established in 2007, these are disproportionate cuts. Further cuts are anticipated in the next spending review and as a result of a zero-based budget review.
Lord Deben
Can I not ask the noble Baroness to go a bit further than that? For that comment by the Secretary of State for Business to be relevant, surely he should have explained why removing this section is helpful. In other words, he seems to have it the wrong way round. It does not help to say, “This section, in its existence, is not being helpful to business”. That is one thing, but it is there. Removing it is a real action. In that case, surely he should have explained why it would be helpful to business to remove this section. I do not see that he has proved that. My problem with this issue is that I do not see why we should not just leave it there, unless there is a good reason to change it. I am old-fashioned enough to believe, “If it ain’t broke, don’t try to change it”.
Baroness Thornton
The noble Lord makes an absolutely perfect point; I wish I had made it myself. I have two final points on the amendments that the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. One is on the provision of conciliation duties and the repeal of Section 3. Under the Equality Act 2006, the EHRC provides conciliation services and the Government propose to repeal that provision. One particular issue really concerns me, which is that of transferring the complaints service for disabled travellers to the Civil Aviation Authority. I have to say that this astonished me. Apart from concerns arising on the ability of the CAA, which has close ties to the aviation industry, one has to ask: will it act independently and impartially? It seems a remarkable thing to be doing.
Moreover, through forcing private and public sector organisations down the more costly compliance route, rather than that of conciliation, and driving the commission towards a court-led approach as opposed to pre-court conciliation, the repeal of Section 3 directly contradicts the overarching aim of the Bill. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to the Committee how this can be justified.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, this has been an important and impassioned debate. I must say that, from the conversations I have had with many of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, that was what I expected it to be. I say from the start how grateful I am to so many of your Lordships for giving up their time to talk to me. I would also like to place on record from the start my recognition and thanks for what so many noble Lords who are here today have achieved on equalities over not just years but decades. I recognise that. Indeed, I know that I am a newcomer to this issue. As a fairly recent member of the Government, I tend to hear myself saying that I am a newcomer to whatever debate I happen to be responding to. In this area, I genuinely think that the fact that I come to this without any of my own baggage is helpful. I have been very open-minded in my approach, apart from my firm belief in the importance of equality and having an equal society, which I know I share with everybody in this Room.
The debate is helpful because it allows us to talk about this important issue. We will agree on several things and, from the comments made by most noble Lords today, one is that the commission has to date not lived up to expectations. Its initial problems had many causes, including government failings. That said, things have improved, certainly in the past couple of years, as evidenced by its unqualified accounts. Although things have improved, we are not there yet. We can all agree that we want a strong and effective equality body and an A-rated national human rights institution. More than anything else, what we all want, and what the debate is all about, is an equal society free from discrimination. Today is not about the past; it is an opportunity to focus on the future. I noted carefully what many noble Lords said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that the job of achieving an equal society is not a job that is done yet. I recognise that and share his view.
I also understand from the comments made and the strong and powerful speeches today that noble Lords want me to be clear about what the Government expect of a strong and effective equality and human rights body. They will want me to spell out what success looks like, which is certainly what I will try to do. As for looking to the future, it is important that the commission has the right relationship with government. Some noble Lords have talked about accountability but we can come on to that in the debates that will follow on later amendments.
For an organisation to be successful, it needs to be clear on its purpose. At its most simple, the purpose of the organisation of the commission is to promote and protect equality and human rights. That is reflected in what I regard as the commission’s core duties at Sections 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006. There is nothing passive about these duties. They require the commission to be an agent of change, to promote understanding, encourage good practice and promote awareness. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, raised a concern about whether the commission would still be an agent for promoting change in the future. The answer is absolutely yes. While the Government consulted on amending the equality duties in Section 8 of the Act to clearly define the commission’s role as an equality regulator, we listened to the feedback and decided against those changes. We agreed that it was neither realistic nor desirable to expect the commission to regulate every part of society. The commission has quite enough on its plate as an agent of change. We want the commission to monitor our progress in reducing persistent inequalities, conduct inquiries into their root causes, establish the evidence about what works, and make and publicise its recommendations for action. I take this opportunity to point out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has just done, that some very important work has been carried out by the commission during the past years. I pay tribute in particular to the disability harassment inquiry and the home care inquiry.
To have impact, the commission must gain the respect of all as our national expert on equality and human rights issues—a body to which everyone can turn and have confidence in, even if its final conclusions will not be supported by all. I heard very clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, said. I say to him that, when I talk about final conclusions not being supported by all, I mean that a salutary and sharp nudge in the ribs of the Government is sometimes what we would expect this commission to do.
That is not least because rights are competing. The importance of the commission lies in its ability to advise on how we get the balance right; for example, between the rights of the offender and the rights of the general population to be protected; and between the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to be protected from discrimination and the rights of religious people to act in accordance with their faith.
The commission cannot be, or be seen to be, the voice of any one group. It has to be guided by the evidence—that is what I think we are all looking to it for. It should not be possible to presume the EHRC’s position on any issue, because its position should be evidence-led. It should not be not an impassioned lobbyist leading emotive campaigns; its role is to be an expert witness, and to make recommendations on the basis of the facts.
As the guardian of our legal rights, it is also the commission’s role to raise awareness of people’s rights under equality and human rights law and to ensure that the law is working as Parliament intended. Where there is a lack of clarity, it should use its enforcement powers where they will have most impact, in a strategic way, to clarify the position; for example, where there appears to be a contradiction between domestic and EU legislation.
Noble Lords are right: the repeal of the general duty will neither stop nor impair the commission’s ability to fulfil its important equality and human rights functions. Nor does it provide a clear statement of purpose. Section 3 is a political statement with no clear legal effect. In many respects, no one can disagree with it. Who does not want to live in a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination? The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, quoted my noble friend Lord Boswell, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece quoted my honourable friend Eleanor Laing as stating their support for the intention behind the general duty during the passage of the 2006 Act—and that is right; it is something with which we agree. But the problem with Section 3 is that it implies that the commission, uniquely, is responsible for encouraging and supporting the development of such a society. This is patently wrong and arguably insults the efforts that we all make in support of these goals, whether through the work of Parliament, government, the wider public sector, business or the community. We are collectively responsible. We might need the commission’s help, but it cannot achieve an equal society on its own.
We are seeking to repeal the general duty on the commission because it creates unrealistic expectations, positive and negative, about what it on its own can achieve. However, as several noble Lords have said during this debate and as I have already indicated, the statement in that general duty is important and removing it from the legislation does not mean that it cannot be replicated in the commission’s own strategic plan or in the way it wants to set out its own mission. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who referred to it as a mission statement. I agree. I think that that is where it is best used and will have most effect.
Baroness Thornton
Will the Minister provide the Committee with a financial breakdown of exactly how the cuts to the commission’s budget have been disbursed?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I think that it would be easier for me to provide that in a follow-up letter subsequent to today’s debate.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I add that I hope that very soon—indeed, imminently—we will publish the budget that the Government have agreed with the commission. It is important for me to make the point that the setting of the budget is informed by the commission’s core function, its responsibilities and what it is required to do. We are confident from the conversations and discussions that we have had with the commission that the budget that we have agreed with it will properly allow it to fulfil its responsibilities.
During this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords raised the issue of the public sector equality duty. We will come to later amendments where I expect the debate to focus very much around that issue. However, the public sector equality duty review is just that—a review of the public sector equality duty. When noble Lords refer to the general duty in the public sector equality duty, I think that it is worth my responding that that is very different from the general duty that we have discussed today. The two things are very different. Our proposal to repeal Section 3 is not related to the public sector equality duty.
Bearing in mind that there are other amendments where we will be able to continue the debate about accountability and, as I said at the start, the commission’s relationship with government and Parliament, I would conclude at this point and say to all noble Lords who have spoken today—not just those who have put their names to the amendments—with the exception of my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to whom I am grateful for their support, that I hope that I have given some assurance which goes some way to giving the Committee the clarity that it is seeking from me as far as what the Government intend in their proposals in this Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Since the Minister has been kind enough to refer to me, perhaps I may say to her that I hope it is absolutely clear that my position in supporting the removal of the general duty under Section 3 of the 2006 Act is predicated on there being no regression whatever in weakening the legal powers and functions of the commission. She has already stated that in an Answer to a Written Question from me, which is the basis on which I can support the Government.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hoped that I had said that in my remarks concluding that the public sector equality duty review is just that. What we are proposing is very much contained in Section 3 and does not relate to what we are reviewing in the public sector equality duty. The decision to remove Section 3 is a decision that we have reached. Now, we are reviewing the public sector equality duty and that is not related to this decision.
Baroness Thornton
If I were the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I might be slightly worried about this. Perhaps the Minister would be wise to take up my proposal to withdraw this. Let us see what the review holds and where we are after the public sector equality duty review. My reading of what the Minister has just said—she has repeated it twice—is that these two things are completely separate.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
They are separate because the public sector equality duty review, which we will debate when we come to the noble Baroness’s amendment about the equality impact assessment, is about whether the public sector duty is operating in the way in which it was designed. Is it achieving its purpose and its aims? We are reviewing how that operates. We are saying that the core function of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is very much rooted in its responsibilities for equality and human rights. The removal of Section 3 does not weaken its ability to do what it exists to do. Its removal is because we believe that it is a statement which should not sit on its own as a responsibility for the commission but as a responsibility for a wider set of public bodies, including Parliament.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her genuine attempt to understand and respond to all our arguments against removal of the general duty. I mean that; we have spent time together discussing this in detail. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not respond to them by name. I am sure that they would want me to save my breath for my response.
I wish that I felt more assured—I really do. For myself and dozens of other people and organisations around the country, the significance of the general duty is quite apparent. I still struggle to understand how the repeal of Section 3 will assist the commission’s future. I do not feel that we have had tangible evidence or examples of what it does now that it would do better if the duty were removed.
We have talked a lot today about perception and mission statements. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was not with us when I made my contribution. He asked someone to explain to him what is added by Section 3. Perhaps the noble Lord does not believe that the power of perception is as strong as the hand of the law. I say to all noble Lords that in my experience perception, not the law, has been the main liberator and discriminator all my life. I am positive that I am not alone in this.
The Minister also tells us that it is wrong for a statutory body to campaign for law or policy reform and that it should focus on promoting the enforcement of laws agreed by Parliament. I agree but—there is a but—there is so much more to a viable equality and human rights commission that would not, if it lost the general duty, have a mandate sufficient to comply either with the Paris principles regarding the status of national human rights institutions or with EU law regarding the mandate of national equality bodies. The Government need to think about this very carefully. Their view of us is really important in this area. I feel that we need more compelling examples of what will be improved by repealing Section 3 as I have heard none so far.
Although I will withdraw the amendment, I fear that if we do not have anything more convincing we will be back at Report, probably saying the very same powerful things we said today. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, rightly said, that this is not just about lawyers and the law; it is about people. It is wrong to say that Section 3 is a political statement. It does not imply to me or others that this is a unique role for the commission. I dare say that all the voluntary organisations in this country would be very hurt by that statement because they take Section 3, the guidance and the authority of the commission and run with it. If it is gone, we will be back to fragmentation. As I said, we are all in this together. Without it I will not feel that I am together with anyone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, before putting the Question for withdrawal, it may be helpful to the Grand Committee if I say that I have received advice that in order to take part in discussion on an amendment, a noble Lord must be in his place throughout debate on an amendment, most particularly while the proposer of the amendment is making his or her speech. Thus, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, his intervention, although out of order, is, nevertheless, on the record and will remain on the record.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I thank the Deputy Chairman of Committees for that, but perhaps I may also say that advice was taken from his predecessor before I spoke, and we received a different view.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Indeed, so my predecessor told me, but since then we have had the great advantage of electronic checking and back came the reply just as I have given it. That may be for the assistance of future proceedings of Grand Committee.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, before we leave that point, it would be very helpful if the Annunciator could keep up with the debate, so that we can be here in time, because there are times when it is five or 10 minutes behind in showing the changes of speakers and the issue being debated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
With great respect to the noble Lord, that is known as the art of keen anticipation, which I learnt many, many years ago.
Baroness Thornton
“Commission for Equality and Human Rights: accountability to Parliament
(1) The Equality Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, (membership) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Appointments shall not take effect until such time as they are approved by a Committee of both Houses of Parliament.”
(3) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) An appointment under sub-paragraph (1)(a) shall not take effect until such time as it has been approved by a Committee of both Houses of Parliament.”
(4) In paragraph 32 of Schedule 1, for sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) substitute—
“(4) The Commission shall lay each annual report before Parliament within 3 months of the end of the financial year to which the report relates.
(5) The Commission shall send a copy of each annual report to—
(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the Scottish Parliament, and(c) the National Assembly for Wales.”(5) In section 4 (strategic plan), for subsection (4) substitute—
“(4) The Commission shall lay the plan and each revision before Parliament.
(4A) The Commission shall send a copy of the plan and each revision to the Secretary of State.”
(6) After paragraph 38 of Schedule 1 (funding) insert—
“38A The budget fixed under paragraph 38 is subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, for supporting me on the amendment. This is by way of trying to be helpful. As the Government, in their wisdom, chose to alter our equalities framework, we thought that we would take them at their word and make even more improvements. I suspect that the amendment is not perfect, but I hope that it gives the gist.
I acknowledge, as was outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, when she was in her place, that the balance of accountability has already started to shift. I should also say, as a member of the Government who put the 2010 Act on the statute book and supported the Equality Act 2006, that perhaps we did not get it quite right then. This is an attempt to remedy that. The amendment amends the Equality Act 2006 so that Parliament can have a greater say in appointment to the EHRC, its budget setting and its reporting.
The EHRC put forward a proposal that required the commission to lay its business plans before Parliament, achieving, as he put it, an optimal balance between independence, accountability and transparency. I recommend Members of the Committee to read what the commission said in its document of 2011, Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That discusses in detail what the balance between independence, accountability and transparency should be. This amendment is drawn very largely from those proposals.
Parliamentary accountability was recommended also by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated that,
“the standard model of non-departmental public body accountability is [not] a sufficiently outward and visible guarantee of independence from the government to be appropriate to a national human rights commission (or indeed the proposed single equality body, whether or not integrated with a human rights commission)”.
Similar constitutional bodies with a role in holding the Government to account, such as the National Audit Office, report directly to Parliament, as do other national human rights institutions such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.
Furthermore, the previous and current chairs of the UN International Coordinating Committee endorsed this model. In June 2011, the then chair of the ICC, Rosslyn Noonan, wrote to Theresa May MP and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, stating:
“The challenge is in the nature of the accountability, which should not be, as proposed, to an agency of the government, but should be to the Parliament … Providing an individual government agency (other than the official Auditor) with active oversight powers would undermine the independence of the NHRI in relation to its monitoring of that agency”.
To this end, we tabled this amendment, which seeks to change the balance of accountability of the EHRC in accordance with the Paris principles that gave our EHRC its “A” status.
I hope that this will be seen in the light of trying to start a discussion. The amendment will strengthen the commission’s accountability to Parliament, thereby making it better able to fulfil its mandate as Britain’s equality regulator and national human rights institution. It covers the appointment of commissioners and the chief executive of the EHRC and includes requirements for the commission to lay annual reports and strategic plans before Parliament and for the commission’s budget to be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
The commission has a strategy responsibility to assess how the Government are complying with their domestic and international equality and human rights obligations. It will do that job very much better if parliamentary accountability provides it with the appropriate independence from government. I mean any Government, not just this Government. I include what I hope will be my own Government after 2015. That is the right way to go. It is not always comfortable for Governments to be held to account in this way on their equalities and human rights record, but it is vital that they are.
In addition, this approach will offer long-term consistency of accountability arrangements to the commission. This will overcome some of the major difficulties recognised in the establishment of the commission, which to date has had a number of different sponsor departments. Again, I hold my own Government responsible for the movement of the Government Equalities Office and therefore for the commission. I understand that it is now on the move from the Home Office to the DCMS; a machinery of government announcement was made just before Christmas. Frankly, that is not consistent. We will have a few months of planning blight, because that is what happens when departments have to move their base and find themselves a new home. I do not think that that is a particularly good move, but if the commission is accountable to Parliament for its work, that will help and perhaps, as the future unfolds, we will find a permanent home in government for the Government Equalities Office. That would be a very good idea.
This does not mean that Ministers and the Government do not have responsibility for the overarching policy and the policy framework through which our equalities and human rights legislation should take place. That is not the purpose of this amendment; its purpose is to make the EHRC a more effective and accountable body to our Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I support this amendment, which has been ably moved by the noble Baroness. As a minimum requirement, “A” status national human rights institutions must comply with the Paris principles. The key ones among them relate to independence from government, guaranteed by constitution or legislation. Greater parliamentary accountability would also be helpful in this regard.
Parliamentary accountability has also previously been recommended by the JCHR in three reports. In 2003, it stated that the “standard model” of non-departmental public body accountability is not,
“a sufficiently outward and visible guarantee of independence from the government to be appropriate to a national human rights commission (or indeed the proposed single equality body, whether or not integrated with a human rights commission)”.
The proposed single equality body did not exist at that time. Again, it said:
“On the whole we would tend to favour a form”,
of appointment,
“which requires a duty to consult Parliament on the appointment of commissioners as a guarantee of independence and democratic accountability, so long as this was a statutory duty”,
and that,
“as a guarantee of independence … Parliament should be directly involved in the setting of any commission’s budget”.
More recently, the JCHR has agreed the Belgrade principles, which relate to the relationship between national human rights institutions, such as the commission, and national Parliaments. The principles were adopted by participants at an international expert seminar led by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2012. The Belgrade principles include several mechanisms for closer relationships between Parliaments and the national human rights institutions: for example, that such institutions,
“should report directly to Parliament”,
and that,
“Parliaments should develop a legal framework for”,
the national human rights institution,
“which secures its independence and its direct accountability to Parliament”.
Again, the principles say:
“Parliaments should invite the members of”,
national human rights institutions,
“to debate the Strategic Plan and/or its annual programme of activities in relation to the annual budget”.
The Public Administration Committee has also emphasised the importance of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of non-departmental public bodies. As the noble Baroness has told us, many similar constitutional bodies with a role in holding the Government to account, such as the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, report directly to Parliament. So do other national human rights institutions, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Other regulators, such as the Office of Fair Trading, also report directly to Parliament with the status of non-ministerial departments. The Government have recently published plans to make the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England more accountable to Parliament. In future, that office will lay its own business plan before Parliament and will be expected to involve appropriate Select Committee chairs in developing its business plan.
In framing this amendment, we have taken account of many precedents that suggest the appropriateness of greater accountability to Parliament for national human rights institutions, both in terms of the advocacy of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Administration Select Committee and precedents constituted by the existence of a raft of other bodies, which report directly to Parliament. We have also taken account of the Belgrade principles in framing the matters which we think ought to come before parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Committee will feel that this amendment is very much in keeping with the way in which these matters have been developing over the past few years, and that we have framed the amendment by taking full account of the issues which it is suggested should form the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. I am happy to support the amendment.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I, too, have put my name to this amendment to move towards greater direct parliamentary accountability for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, this could be advantageous as a tidying-up exercise. It needs to be done. Given all the criticisms that the commission has faced from individuals and others, some of which have been about its accountability to Parliament, I am slightly disappointed that the Government, in drafting these various changes, did not take the opportunity to look at making the commission better able to fulfil its mandate as Britain’s equality regulator and national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris principles, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said.
Unfortunately, the commission has come under sustained attack. Some of that has been quite intense and some of it has been justifiable, but a lot of it has been rooted in the past and has not recognised the work that the commission has done, how much progress has been made and how much the commission has moved on from those early years when the three organisations came together.
In terms of greater accountability, I think that what is proposed would be desirable. It would ensure greater transparency and openness. It would assist the commission in its statutory responsibility to assess how the Government comply with their domestic and international equality and human rights obligations. Parliamentary accountability would provide the commission with more independence from the Government in order to fulfil this role rather more impartially. At the moment, we do not have the best of both worlds. The commission is partly accountable to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and it is partly accountable to the Minister through the Government Equalities Office. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, that relationship has not always been positive; it cannot be deemed to have been a successful relationship.
There has been turbulence as a result of reorganisation. With each reshuffle—every couple of years, it seems—the equalities unit and, by virtue of that, the commission have been shunted about. I think that it is on its fourth or fifth government department. As was said, it was initially under the Department of Trade and Industry, then the Department for Communities and Local Government and then the Department for Work and Pensions; then it was standalone and now it is with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That does not provide the organisation with the stability and continuity that are needed. These constant changes have in some respects been detrimental to the commission’s work and some of the blame for that has to lie at the door of the last Government, as has been acknowledged.
There have also been problems with the sponsoring department. The commission has never had, certainly in the three years when I served there—others may bear me out on this—the independence to act as other non-departmental public bodies have been able to. For example, permanent senior appointments have always been at the behest of Ministers giving the go-ahead. I found myself in the situation when, after the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers criticised how much was being spent on consultants for temporary positions, we advertised at great expense for a permanent chief executive. That was then stopped because, for whatever reason, it was not deemed to be the right time. That meant that there was another delay. The acting chief executive continued and it was a couple of years before we had a permanent chief executive in place. The same has happened with other senior appointments when the commission was not given permission by the Government Equalities Office, through the Minister, to appoint a permanent director for various positions. It was quite unfairly pilloried in the media for wasting public money when it did not have the independence to make such appointments. If we are going to have an organisation which we want to be independent and robust, it has to have freedom in that regard.
In order to retain the commission’s “A” status as a UN accredited national human rights institution, it needs to be assured and shored up. On occasion, there have been letters threatening to remove the “A” status of the commission purely because of activities from government departments that have been outside its control. It is time to allow the commission to have the consistency, the stability and the independence that it needs but also to be robustly accountable to Parliament. Models for other regulators and national human rights institutions have already been mentioned. There are others, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and the Electoral Commission, which we could look at and which work perfectly well.
Accountability to government would allow the commission to work across government bodies. That has been a problem, particularly when the commission has wanted to look at issues which do not come under the remit of the sponsoring committee or department. There have been problems about working cross-department as well. This proposal would give it the freedom to do that and would satisfy the Cabinet Office test for independence and accountability against which all public bodies are reviewed every three years. It would also allow the commission to formalise relationships and fulfil its mandate as a regulator, which it has not been able to do. I strongly recommend that the Government look at this and I will be very interested in what the Minister says in reply as to whether the Government will look positively at this.
I know that in previous discussions—I am grateful that the Minister has made herself available for discussions and briefings—the Government have not felt that this is an issue and that it should not be touched. It is interesting that for other things legislation is needed, whereas, so far, something that would make this organisation far more accountable is not deemed to be needed, although I am hoping to hear a more positive reaction today. The appointment of the chief executive and of commissioners would be subject to parliamentary ratification. For those who have followed some of these things in the media recently, the last tranche of appointments of commissioners has not been exactly exemplary and probably would not have been tolerated at other organisations.
In terms of the commission being directly responsible, it could respond directly to parliamentary questions rather than the Government responding on the commission’s behalf, which is the problem at the moment. The commission’s budget also could be set by Parliament, rather than the arcane situation that exists. I seem to remember that as late as the end of February/the beginning of March of this year, the commission still did not know its budget for the coming financial year, which would be unheard of at any other organisation. I strongly endorse this amendment and believe that it could strengthen the independent requirement in Schedule 42 to the Equality Act 2006.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the object of the amendment. I just want to supplement that great summary of the history given by the noble Lord, Lord Low, by adding one or two aspects.
When the previous Government introduced the 2006 Act, I was was pressing for something on exactly these lines and I was concerned about the Paris principles. Thanks to the creativity of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in particular, we were able to write into that Act some guarantees of the independence of the commission which are still there and I am delighted to see will remain. We removed all the bossy, ministerial interference provisions that were originally in the 2006 Act and that would have given powers to Ministers to intervene all over the place in the commission’s work. All those were wisely removed by the previous Government. We then introduced an express provision stating that Ministers were not allowed unnecessarily to interfere with the commission—that is still in the 2006 Act. We also introduced an obligation on the Minister to make sure that enough funds were available to ensure that the commission could carry out its work effectively in accordance with its statutory duties. We also introduced a merit requirement for appointments. All those are still there.
One of the great problems, however—it has been referred to by my noble friend just now—is that the commission when it was set up became the orphan of Whitehall; that is, no major government department was willing to take responsibility for or ownership of it to give it the backing that it really needed. I can say as someone who was the unpaid independent adviser to the previous Government’s Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, that I was unsuccessful in persuading the previous Government that the Ministry of Justice should take charge of this area, because, frankly, the civil servants at the time did not want to know. And so, a strange floating kidney was set up instead. It was not a proper department and it did not have any of the power and influence of a major government department. That led to all kinds of managerial and other failings from the beginning through lack of proper back-up within the Administration. This was not just the fault of Ministers; it was more a fault of senior civil servants, including a Permanent Secretary whom I went to, who said that they would rather not want to know, thank you very much, because it was too difficult or too hot a potato.
That is part of the background. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has indicated, the Joint Committee on Human Rights on which I serve has several times advocated that there be proper parliamentary accountability, not only because of the Paris principles but because it is healthy in a parliamentary democracy with a body of this kind for there to be a proper relationship.
One thing to have changed since we on the JCHR made those reports is the appointment of the new chair, whom I am delighted to see in her place, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. Her appointment was made only after the Joint Committee on Human Rights interviewed her and came to the conclusion that she would be admirably well qualified for the post. Another change is that the Joint Committee will now have the main responsibility for the work of the commission; it will not be split, I think, with the House of Commons committee. We are a Joint Committee of both Houses comprising six Peers and six MPs; we cannot be controlled by Government because one of us is a Cross-Bencher—we are the only parliamentary committee of which that is true—and we are not tribal or party-political in the way in which we conduct ourselves. We have real expertise going back for more than a decade.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
I want to come back on one point, if I may. In 2003 the Joint Human Rights Committee had three reports, and one of the clauses said that,
“as a guarantee of independence … Parliament should be directly involved in setting the budget of the commission”.
Can the noble Lord clarify that he said he could not see the point in that? He seems to be contradicting what the report said.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was talking about an idea that I thought was being suggested—not that there be some kind of consultation but that Parliament itself, or a parliamentary committee, should agree and set the budget, rather than that being done by the Treasury and the responsible government department. Of course, it is possible to have consultation by a parliamentary committee on the size of a budget and how it is to be spent, but under our system of parliamentary government, it seems to me that the ultimate responsibility for deciding on the budget and ensuring proper accountability is through the accounting officer—normally a Permanent Secretary in charge of the department, who is then accountable to Her Majesty’s Treasury and to Parliament. We tried all of that when we looked at the Judicial Appointments Commission; we tried to ring-fence the budget of the Judicial Appointments Commission and of the judiciary as a whole, but failed to do so for similar reasons.
I am sympathetic to the idea of parliamentary involvement and accountability. All that I am suggesting is that the way forward is to encourage the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if it is willing to do so, with the consent of the Government, if they are willing to do so, to develop new protocols that will allow this kind of accountability to occur. I am sympathetic with the object, but I do not think that the amendment is the best way forward. Similarly with regard to annual reports, there is no reason why there should not be a report that is then scrutinised and discussed with the commission by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It seems to me to be better to have an existing piece of expert machinery than to create a new Joint Committee of both Houses without purpose.
I say all this with no authority; I do not speak for the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It has not considered that; nor do I have any idea of whether the Government is be sympathetic. I am a member of the committee suggesting that as one way forward.
Lord Deben
My Lords, as somebody who is also very sympathetic to the purpose of the amendments, I follow my noble friend’s thoughts. I declare an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. We have a very independent situation—more independent than any of those mentioned earlier by my noble friend. The whole question of budgeting is very delicate and difficult.
If you insist that the budget should be discussed in detail in a nitty-gritty way, it makes it almost impossible to be independent, because independence is about how you use the resources that you have. It is bad enough being at the behest of Government as to how much money you may have—there are always arguments about that. You say, “If I am going to do this job, I need this amount”, and the Government will always want you to do it for less. Those arguments go on, inevitably, because the paymaster is always, in the end, the public purse. I think that my noble friend Lord Lester is right to say that the amendment would add to that yet another inappropriate level. However high-minded a committee may be, it is difficult to understand the balances that have to be made. It is like any business, it is difficult.
I hope that the Government will take on board the concerns which the amendments evince. I hope that they will understand that the proposals added by my noble friend Lord Lester: not only that the role of the Joint Committee will be seen by the Government as useful but that the Joint Committee will turn out to have the same view of its purpose. That seems a sensible way forward. I hope that the amendments, which are a good probing way into the issues, will not be pressed. I have to say how hard it is to be independent and run the system in the best way in the public good and still have to answer to five different sets of people who feel that they have, at least, advice to give. I hope that we will not go too far down this route.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate about the accountability of the commission. Picking up on what my noble friend Lord Deben said, there is real value in Committee in having probing amendments that allow issues to be discussed and explored. That is the whole point of this stage of scrutiny of legislation. I welcome that and will, with officials, carefully reflect on our debates on all the amendments today.
Going back to the original question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the “A” status of the commission, I know that she asked me this question in the previous debate and she may well have repeated it in her speech on this debate. I can say categorically that it is important for the commission to retain that status. I recognise that accountability is important to the perception of the independence of the commission, which is important to the status conferred on the commission by the ICC, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the commission has a status under the present arrangements.
All that being said, I think that it is possible to strengthen the accountability of the commission to Parliament. In the Government’s opinion, the solution to strengthening accountability does not lie in shifting roles, it is about responsibilities. It is about being clear and transparent about who is responsible for what and by when, and to invite closer scrutiny of the effectiveness of those arrangements. To say it another way, we want to make it clear who is responsible for what, so that people can see as clearly as possible how we are carrying out our different roles and functions. That is why officials in the Government Equalities Office and the commission spent more than six months agreeing the framework document, which is publicly available on both their websites.
I know that there have been some teething issues in the implementation of the framework document which officials in both organisations are reviewing at the moment, but there is no dispute on the principles that the commission must be free to exercise its functions free from ministerial interference or undue influence and that the commission must comply with the same expenditure rules as every other public body. There is no doubt that progress has been made, as I mentioned in the last debate. Indeed, the commission has laid its first two clean sets of accounts before Parliament; there has been a 75% reduction in the commission’s reliance on expensive interim staff, a point to which my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece referred; and the commission’s strategic plan was published promptly last April.
As I say, we are working to increase the transparency of the Government’s decisions on the commission to Parliament. For example, the appointment of the new chair—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—to the commission was for the first time subject to pre-appointment scrutiny, and we have committed to send the report of the comprehensive budget review to Parliament, setting out the evidence base for the Government’s funding decisions—and by that I mean the funding decisions for the commission, which includes the funding for the GEO.
We are working with the commission to increase the transparency of its work to Parliament. The commission’s strategic plan, annual reports and accounts and progress reports are already laid before Parliament, and, indeed, Parliament has shown interest in its work, with the chair and the chief executive having been called to give evidence before a number of our committees.
As noble Lords speaking today have acknowledged, the commission reports to Parliament through the Minister for Women and Equalities. Although we support the commission having a closer working relationship with Parliament, we do not think that this requires a wholesale change in the reporting arrangements, which are in line with standard UK practice for non-departmental public bodies. I can refer to some examples where that is the case, including ACAS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece referred to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. I think it is true that that organisation is strengthening its accountability to Parliament. However, I think I am also right in saying that it remains, none the less, an organisation sponsored by the Home Office. The arrangement by which it is accountable to Parliament through the relevant Minister therefore exists there too.
As for how Parliament might strengthen its relationship with the commission, clearly it is for Parliament to decide how much interest it wishes to take in the commission’s work and indeed in the GEO’s sponsorship of the commission. However, we have made it clear that we would support the Joint Committee on Human Rights taking on a greater scrutiny role, for example in examining the commission’s business plan, which was indeed suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, in her pre-appointment hearing.
It is also worth noting the points that my noble friend Lord Lester made. I know that he caveated his remarks by saying that he does not speak for the committee in this context today. However, we certainly support the willingness on both sides for there to be a stronger relationship. We support that in principle and it is something that we would only encourage.
On the specific issue of the commission’s independence, it is worth saying that this is ensured by the Equality Act 2006, which provided that there is transparency around the commission’s role, relationship and responsibilities to government, which my noble friend Lord Lester has referred to. It is because it is enshrined in law that I believe we can be confident that the commission’s independence is properly protected. As I said, we support the strengthening of accountability to Parliament. We have already seen some improvement with the appointment of the chairman and we would certainly support an active dialogue between the chairman of the commission and the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Lord Low of Dalston
Before the Minister sits down, would she reply to the point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard model for non-departmental public body accountability is not a sufficiently outward and visible guarantee of independence from the Government to be appropriate to a national human rights commission and, indeed, the points raised by the chair of the UN commission about the need to strengthen the commission’s accountability by making it more accountable to Parliament?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The simplest response that I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Low, is that we are in active dialogue with the ICC. My right honourable friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Miller, has exchanged correspondence with the ICC, as I know has the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. This dialogue has been very productive. As I said at the beginning, the commission has a status under its existing arrangements. Its reporting to Parliament has not been questioned when it was given its status. We are retaining its reporting to Parliament via the Minister but we are seeking to strengthen the transparency of its roles and to ensure greater scrutiny of its work, if that is something that the Joint Committee on Human Rights would like to carry out. I think that the combination of both those things will safeguard its status. I am not aware, from the correspondence with the ICC, that that is in doubt.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was the one who above all raised the issue of the Paris principles in relation to the setting up of the commission in the 2006 Act and beyond. I have sat on the JCHR ever since. I have no doubt that it is not the function of the UN Paris principles procedure to prescribe precisely to each member state the nature of each relationship in order to satisfy the requirements of the principles. I suggest that the commission would not be treated in the same way as other public authorities, because it would have a continuous role through its chair and, if necessary, otherwise with a standing committee of both Houses that was expert in human rights and had an oversight function, in addition to its relationship with Whitehall. I would be amazed—although I will ask; we will see whether I am right or wrong—if the JCHR, having considered this, came back and said that it thought that that relationship was inadequate to satisfy the Paris principles. I would say that this is premature at the moment, but perhaps the right thing to do is to put it on the agenda of the Joint Committee on Human Rights next week.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister and my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Deben. I think that we have made some progress with this discussion, which is what we intended to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, gave us a very useful description of the practicalities and symptoms of the dysfunctionality in the relationship between the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC, and of the way in which it has impacted on the commission’s work and on its ability to do its job properly. It seems likely that the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC share the same budget source. That would be quite wrong, because they are probably fighting for the same resources. I ask that as a question that does not need to be answered now but which is pertinent.
It possibly answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which I completely accept: that the reason that there were serious management problems was because the two organisations share the same budget line. Despite the assurances put into the 2006 legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was quite right about them—the relationship simply has not worked in some respects. That has been very important and a source of genuine regret. The discussion is about how we make these things work better and how we make sure that accountability works better.
I hope that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will have this discussion before the next stage of the Bill, because that will help us. If we need to discuss this at the next stage of the Bill, I hope that the discussion will be about what will happen in future and that we will get the discussion on the record.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to come back to her in writing on the question of budgets. There was one point on which I was not as clear as I ought to have been. I was reminded of something that my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said. I said repeatedly that the commission had “A” status under the current arrangements. As has been made evident in the debate, clearly there were problems in the past in the way in which the commission related to the Government Equalities Office. The relationship did not work as well as it needed to. However, what I sought to say on behalf of the Government was that the relationship had improved and continues to improve. We are in danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. We have “A” status under the current arrangements. We are improving what is wrong. We will continue to improve and put things right, so let us not put ourselves in a situation where we improve everything and then the ICC turns around and says, “We will remove your ‘A’ status because you keep telling us that the arrangements do not work”, when we have been able to show that recently they have started to improve and that we know how to improve them further—which is what we will do.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Perhaps I may add that the independence requirements that we wrote in were used by some at staff level on the commission to justify not being properly financially accountable. I was blamed by officials for having introduced the independence requirements on the ground that there was not proper accountability. Therefore, those at the UN who are considering the Paris principles will also consider that independence does not mean a lack of proper accountability. I make that point because that is something for which we all wish—I refer to financial accountability for the way that money is spent.
Baroness Thornton
I was not making that point at all but I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. The remarks of the Minister were helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Equality Act 2010: Equality Impact Assessment
(1) The Equality Act 2010 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 149 (public sector equality duty), after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) A public authority shall make the following arrangements for compliance with the duties under this section—
(a) assessing and consulting on the likely impact of its proposed policies on the promotion of its duties under this section; (b) monitoring its policies for any adverse impact on the fulfilment of its duties under this section;(c) publishing the results of such assessments and consultations as are mentioned in paragraph (a) and of such monitoring as is mentioned in paragraph (b);(d) ensuring public access to information and services which it provides; and(e) training staff in connection with the duties imposed by this section.””
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, two of the strongest indications to date that the Government may be rowing back on the issue of institutional discrimination are the reviews of the public sector equality duty and of the requirement to undertake equality impact assessments that are under way. On the public sector equality duty, despite a recent public consultation in which 90% of the respondents were opposed to any change being made to the public sector equality duty, the Government have appointed a steering group to consider whether that duty performs as intended.
We are right to be suspicious. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay those suspicions, but, so far, she has not done so. The removal of that duty could lead to public organisations no longer being required to consider the wider impact of policy on marginalised groups, less than two years after the duty was introduced.
On the issue of equality impact assessments, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced at the CBI conference on 19 November:
“So I can tell you today we are calling time on equality impact assessments. You no longer have to do them if these issues have been properly considered. That way policy-makers are free to use their judgement and do the right thing to meet the equalities duty rather than wasting their own time and taxpayers’ money”.
That means that public sector organisations will no longer be required to undertake equality impact assessments as a means to fulfil their obligations as outlined in the public sector equality duty. Instead, those important assessments have been dismissed as unnecessary box-ticking, with no alternative suggested that will enable and ensure robust consideration of the impact of policy proposals on protected groups.
Each of those announcements presents its own challenge, but the two are also clearly correlated and, together, risk undermining the consideration of marginalised groups in policy development altogether. Without a duty “to have regard to”, the risk of neglect must be high. We believe that, instead of destabilising this important piece of legislation further, we should be seeking actively to strengthen it. That is the point of the amendment.
Rather than calling time on equality impact assessments, we should enshrine them in legislation. We therefore call for an additional amendment to be made to the Bill that will require public authorities to assess, consult, publish and monitor the likely impact of proposed policies.
The public sector equality duty, as set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, as well as to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not.
The new duty replaces the former race, disability and gender equality duties, the origins of which date back to the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in 2000, with a single duty that applies to eight protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The public sector equality duty requires public authorities to assess the impact that changes to policy and practices could have on different protected groups, ensuring that those decisions are being made in a fair, transparent and accountable way, and in consideration of the needs and rights of different members of the community. It applies to public bodies across Great Britain listed in Schedule 19 to the Act and to any other organisation that is carrying out a public function. It having been in place for less than two years, repealing or significantly changing the duty now would be premature. A much better evidence base is needed before a decision is reached.
An equality impact assessment involves assessing the likely or actual effects of policies or services on people in respect of disability, gender and racial equality. Although equality impact assessments are not legally required, they have been widely adopted as an effective and efficient means for public authorities to undertake proper consideration of equal opportunities and are described by the authorities which use them as,
“a positive force for the delivery of real equality”.
In addition, case law suggests that those assessments provide robust evidence documenting how decisions were reached.
The recent announcement by David Cameron indicates that policymakers will be free to determine how the need to have due regard to equalities issues in policy development should be met. However, without robust alternatives to EIAs, that ambiguity could leave public sector organisations exposed to costly, time-consuming and reputation-damaging legal challenges.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I have already expressed my concern about the signs of the Government rowing back from the equalities agenda. I do not intend to go over that ground again, though I share the suspicions of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which she has just expressed in moving her amendment.
In support of the amendment, I shall make two brief points. Doing away with the equality impact assessments would be a retrograde step—or “calling time” on them in the Prime Minister’s words. There are two reasons for this. First, they force people to think about marginalised groups who are often overlooked. Far from being a burden, these assessments have often been welcomed by people with responsibility for running organisations and providing services as helping them at the end of the day to provide a better service. Secondly, it is essential for the proper evaluation of the implementation of policy and for accountability that we should continue to have these assessments.
If we think about the role of EIAs in government, it may be convenient for governments to be able to avoid scrutiny, but it is not a very intelligent way to go about the rational development of public policy. It is rather an obscurantist Government who seek to avoid systematic evaluation of the impact of their policies. It would be helpful and a good development if the requirement to conduct equality impact assessments were to be written into statute. I support the amendment.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I have a different view about this. I will try to express it in the way that one does as one tries to run a business and is concerned with public activities as well. There is a danger that these discussions become polarised. There are those who feel that unless you write all this down in a precise way you can easily mix and miss the necessary duty to ensure that what we do in the public and private sectors is properly balanced so that services and provision are accessible to all. I am one of those who think that one has to be particularly careful about disadvantaged groups and those who are most likely to be vulnerable. I lean very much in that direction.
However, there is also the other side of the argument; namely, that sometimes we have got ourselves into so prescriptive a situation that it is very hard for people to get on with the job. I want to give an example which is sufficiently far in the past for it not to be seen as party political. When I lived in Ealing, if you wanted an extension into your roof, which a lot of rather big houses in the area wanted, you could not get the decision from the planning authority until it had been discussed by the sexual orientation committee and the racial committee. Something which obviously had nothing to do with either of those committees had to go through the format to deliver. What worried me was that it was the cause of considerable aggravation for people who just wanted an extra couple of rooms for their family. It did no good for people’s views about either sexual orientation or racial equality.
I have taken that example because it is extreme but it actually happened. It caused real problems and was promoted by the then governing party in Ealing as a wonderful example of how good it was on precisely these issues. I thought that it was a terrible example of how to distort and upset the very careful balance that you have to have between practicality and the important ethical issues with which we are concerned.
Therefore, my concern about the proposed new clause is that it can so easily lead to a simple system of adding to bureaucracy without achieving any end. The important thing is that all of us in our public lives and in our private business lives—leave alone our private lives—should seek to carry through our duties, whatever they may be—familial, business or public—in a way which constantly encourages us to ask, “Is this proposal one which disadvantages sections of the community?”. You have to be pretty careful about how you define those sections because sometimes people get left out. If you are not careful, you get a whole lot of other people added in because someone says, “Oh, you have that list, but there is this lot and another group and another set who we might have missed out”. I am much more interested in framing the legislation in such a way as to encourage people to see their duties in whatever they do in this context.
It is equally difficult to argue that we should have a note in here saying that everyone should carry out their public duties remembering that they have to tell the truth, or should carry out their public duties in such a way that they do not waste money, because, if you say that, you are assuming that people do not think of those two things if they are appointed to public office. I think that most people doing these jobs already consider them in this way. I would much prefer to look for a solution that encourages people’s training and makes sure that they have sensible ways in which to remind themselves of these importances without having these detailed requirements, which very often will be used as a necessary factor in things which really have got nothing to do with the issues that we are talking about.
There is an in-between, a balance, between these two positions. We have to be careful of producing an answer which says, “If you don’t agree with this kind of detailed listing, somehow or other you are less enthusiastic about equality than those who do”. I am very enthusiastic about equality—I have a record of fighting for it all across the board—but I have to say that I also hate bureaucracy: it makes people who are on our side in the first place less on our side because of what they have to do when what they have to do is unnecessary.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I think that it is true to say that there have been unintended consequences in the way that equality impact assessments have been applied in some instances. The views just expressed by my noble friend are widely shared in some quarters. However, I associate myself with this amendment in an effort to reform what we understand by equality impact assessments and to bring to them a sense of balance. I also want to highlight their importance and not lose sight of why we had to have them in the first instance.
Of course, there has been change. The Prime Minister mentioned that these assessments would be done away with, and there has been discussion of changing the terminology used from “equality impact assessments” to “analysis of the effects”. We need to be clear about how terminology is used in decision-making. We should focus less on the production of a document and more on impact. That needs to be clarified. More clarification is needed on intentions because it seems that government policy is veering towards getting rid of these assessments. Are we to understand that there is no longer a wish to know in advance about the impact of policies on different groups of people? If so, that needs to be said clearly.
There are concerns that too much time is taken in conducting spurious or inaccurate equality analyses, and perhaps many people conducting analyses have not always understood them. Proposed new subsection (6A)(e) refers to,
“training staff in connection with the duties imposed by this section”.
There seems to be a bit of a gap between what is expected and what should be produced at the end of the process—what we are looking for as an end result. How can we be sure that government policies do not have the effect of treating some groups of people less favourably than others if there is no evidence of consideration of the likely impact on these different groups?
A recent review of government policy suggested that there was little evidence that the impact on people had been considered when plans and proposals had been circulated. Surely we do not wish to see a return to the situation that prevailed between the late 1970s and the 1990s, when the duty under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act was applied only to local government and not to other public services such as the police. It is important to recall for the record that it was not until the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence that the public sector equality duty was extended to all public authorities and private organisations contracted to deliver services. Asserting that equality is being considered is not the same as providing evidence. The way the evidence is produced may be contentious. I have no problem with it being more streamlined and sensible.
My final comment is to highlight something positive that took place in the past two years. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, using its unique powers under Section 11, conducted an impact assessment on Her Majesty’s Treasury, among other government departments, to assess the extent to which the Treasury had met its legal obligations to consider the impact of the 2010 spending review decisions on protected groups. This was a really positive piece of work and I commend it the Committee—it is on the website and your Lordships can read it in the report. The work was embraced by the Government and government departments that have not done this before. It was a first instance; it had not happened under the previous Government and was the first report on this scale. It gave a set of recommendations for how to target spending to ensure more effective use of public money and greater fairness across government overall. It was a very significant work, so we have some good practice on how it can happen. I urge that we look at ways of reforming but retaining this very important legislation.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this amendment. It might be worth saying for the record, and for the purposes of clarity, that the amendment that we are debating now is to Section 149 of the Equality Act and that the Bill in front of us does not propose to amend that bit of the Act. This is of course different from the general duty for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which this Bill will amend. I say that because, as I said in an earlier debate today, it is important to keep reminding ourselves that the two are different things.
Let me say first that I understand the concerns raised in this debate but that I would put myself absolutely shoulder to shoulder with my noble friend Lord Deben in what he says. Like him, I absolutely support equality but I do not support bureaucracy, particularly because I do not want processes to undermine our ability to extend the support for equality beyond those of us who feel passionately about it. It cannot just be the same people who believe in equality; if we are to improve equality in our society, we have to get everybody on board. We need to be mindful of that in how we design our approach to achieving that end. We all want the same thing: the better consideration of equality issues by public bodies when they are designing services and policies. Where I think we differ, and this is obviously what we are debating, is the method for achieving it. I will explain why I believe this Government’s approach is the right one.
The implementation of the public sector equality duty in 2011 marked a significant change in approach compared to previous equality duties. We wanted to move away from the bureaucratic box-ticking and form-filling to make sure we make real progress on equality. I understand that we in the Government have to deliver on that outcome; that is what we will be judged on. We believe that this amendment would be a regression to the previous practice of too much process and bureaucracy, with not enough focus on real equality outcomes.
Because it has been referred to, let me refer directly to the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the CBI about equality impact assessments. This is really a point in response to my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece, but what the Prime Minister was saying that day was that EIAs are not and never have been a legal requirement to ensure what we are committed to achieving, which is public services that do not marginalise or discriminate but which ensure that people are treated equally. They are an intensive resource that can take key staff away from planning and delivering better public services.
If that is not bad enough, worse, they are often produced after key decisions are taken, so they can be a sort of reverse-engineering exercise: a decision has been made and the decision-makers then go back and look at the equality impact assessment form, rather than thinking about the effect of their policy on equalities at the time of their forming it. For that reason, departments were asked to call a halt to the production of equality impact assessments. It was not of course to stop in any way their absolute requirement to have due regard to the public sector equality duty.
Public bodies should consider the potential equality impacts of their policies throughout their design and delivery. Records of this can be used as evidence of due regard to the relevant equality aim and there is no need to create additional unnecessary paperwork. The public sector equality review is taking place at this time but it is important to stress, going back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Deben, that we want to make sure that it delivers the outcome that we all seek to achieve. We feel strongly about it and we are absolutely committed to the need for the public sector to deliver policies and services that ensure an outcome in support of everyone. We want to ensure that it delivers that aim.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked in a previous debate whether we would be taking evidence. We plan to hold a series of round tables that will allow us to gather evidence from the VCS, legal advisers to public bodies, equality and diversity practitioners, trade unions, inspectorates and the private sector. We are also developing a questionnaire to enable public service professionals to provide their personal experience of working with the duty. The involvement of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the review is critical and, for this reason, the commission is represented on the independent steering group that oversees the review. We are also working closely with the commission as we develop the evidence-gathering for it. The noble Baroness referred to the Schneider Ross research. In evidence-gathering to date, so far we have focused on analysing existing research and case law, but we will look closely at that research as part of this. I realise that we are keen to make progress, so I hope that in this short debate I have given the noble Baroness enough reassurance for her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for her remarks and, indeed, I am also mindful of wanting to make progress. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for their remarks.
Experience tells us—this is partly based on the very wise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben—that while public bodies and people know that they must have financial probity and regard to the truth, they do not always know that they have to understand the impact of their decisions on different groups. We have mountains of experience telling us that people simply do not think about the impact of the decisions that they take on disabled people or other groups. That is why we have this legislation and why it is so important. I will read the comments made by the noble Baroness, and we will then decide what we want to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Equality Act 2010: caste discrimination
(1) Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 (race) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) for “may” substitute “shall”.
(3) After subsection (5)(a) insert—
“(5A) A Minister of the Crown may by order—”.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, in moving this amendment I declare an interest as the Minister partly responsible, along with my noble friend Lady Royall, for supporting the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 to give power to the Minister to add caste as a strand of race discrimination in the Act, following a period of research to establish whether caste discrimination exists in the UK and requires a legislative response.
That research took place. It was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in 2010. In the past two years, the Government have failed to act. What is even worse—I hope to stand corrected by the Minister if I am wrong—they have failed to discuss with or consult effective groups and organisations in all that time.
The report that I referred to states clearly on page 48:
“Firstly, the overlap between religion and caste. Some of the cases might have been either caste or religious discrimination. This does not mean that caste discrimination laws would be redundant. Ravidassias and Valmikis may be protected under religion or belief discrimination laws. However, low caste individuals of other religions or none will not always be covered, nor would the harassment using offensive caste language. Thus, without legislation specifically prohibiting caste discrimination, such discrimination would only be partially reduced by law”.
Most recently, the EHRC stated:
“The … Commission supports the enactment of Section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010, which provides that a Minister may by order amend the statutory definition of race to include caste and may provide for exceptions in the Act to apply or not to apply to caste. The Commission notes the findings of the government-commissioned National Institute of Economic and Social Research … paper on caste discrimination. In light of this, the Commission would suggest legal protection under the Equality Act 2010 for those experiencing discrimination in Britain should be as comprehensive as possible”.
During the past two years, despite questions and requests, the Government have ducked the issue. They have said that there is no consensus on it. However, the organisations that deny discrimination—the Hindu Council and Hindu Forum—do not like and have never liked the proposals, and it is not surprising that they resist change. They pray in aid an exchange of letters between the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the research organisation—I wonder whether the Minister is familiar with it. In September 2012, Dr Hywel Francis MP, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, received a letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, stating:
“This is an emotive issue in which the considerations as to whether to legislate or not are finely balanced. For instance, as I have indicated, there is no consensus of opinion among the wider Hindu and Sikh communities as to whether such legislation is necessary. You also mention the evidence that is currently available through reports such as the NIESR report from 2010. While the NIESR report considered that: ‘Evidence of [caste] discrimination and harassment was found’ it also acknowledged that ‘proof either way was impossible’. Ministers are therefore considering the arguments presented by a range of stakeholders together with whether legislating would be a proportionate response to the significance of the problem and the scale of the issue domestically”.
I have two things to say on this. First, the letter sent to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, by the director of the research body concerned was completely clear in stating that,
“I think it would be useful to clarify our conclusions from the study, as your two quotes may leave some confusion. Our statement that ‘proof either way was impossible’ was a philosophical point over the nature of knowledge and proof. Unless a discriminator admits to discrimination, one can rarely be certain discrimination has occurred. This equally applies to, for example, race and sex discrimination, the existence of which we do not doubt. Notwithstanding the philosophical point, the evidence strongly suggests that caste discrimination and harassment, including of the type which would fall under the Equality Act, exists in Britain. I hope this clarifies our findings”.
Secondly, the bodies which do not want this legislation are part of the reason why such discrimination exists, so of course they do not want it. I therefore think that the ambiguity in that report has been cleared up.
On the discussions that have taken place, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, hosted a meeting between Ministers and the Hindu Council and Hindu Forum in 2011, soon after the report was published. However, neither the alliance that is fighting caste discrimination, the ACDA, nor, to my knowledge, any stakeholders representing victims of caste-based discrimination were invited to that meeting. I also understand that the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to Parliamentary Questions—one of which was mine—in which she stated that there was no consensus on using Section 9(5) was based on views expressed at the meeting convened by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I also understand that when the two Ministers—Lynne Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma—attended a meeting of the alliance in January 2011, they refused to comment on the report’s findings.
The need for legislation is clear. Existing religious discrimination legislation only partially covers caste discrimination. Reliance on this was deemed inadequate. There is a real danger, if the UK Government do not accept and deal with the issue of caste discrimination, that the problem will grow unchecked, with devastating consequences for thousands of people in the UK. The report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research contends that relying on the Indian community to take action to reduce caste discrimination and harassment will be problematic. Instead, it recommends that legislative steps be taken to provide redress for victims.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. It is very simple and it would right a great wrong. However, if she does not feel at this point in the Bill that she can accept it, fairness, justice and truth will be served if she agrees, with her ministerial colleagues, to meet the ACDA and other organisations that have been consistent and vigilant in their search for equality for Dalits in the UK. The Government owe them the courtesy of a hearing. I beg to move.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I remind noble Lords that when Section 9(5)(a) first came before the House, it had significant all-party support. I refer noble Lords to a statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, on 11 January 2010, reported in col. 341 of Hansard.
The previous Government sensibly decided that they needed to test the evidence. They commissioned the most reputable body in the country to examine the issue. It came up with a clear statement that there was evidence of discrimination on the basis of caste. I will repeat briefly its summary. The study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research stated:
“The study identified evidence suggesting caste discrimination and harassment of the type covered by the Equality Act 2010 in relation to … work (bullying, recruitment, promotion, task allocation) … provision of services … and … education (pupil on pupil bullying)”.
There is an important qualifying note that states:
“Pupil on pupil bullying is not directly covered by the Equality Act 2010. However, the actions of a school may be covered where it deals with bullying in a particular way because of a protected characteristic (e.g. race, sex)”.
So the most reputable body in the country for this kind of research produced evidence of discrimination; we should be quite clear about that.
What does this mean in practice? I made a point of interviewing somebody who claimed that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of caste. He had trained in India in the medical field and was extremely well qualified. He came to this country and worked in the NHS. Everything went fine for a year with the man’s job. Then he applied to his supervisor for leave to go home for a family wedding. His supervisor inquired where he lived, and who his family and other contacts were. From that moment, the relationship changed totally. The person in charge clearly felt that this man’s family and caste were beyond the pale. Life was made absolute hell for him. He took his case to the trade union, which said that he had certainly been discriminated against on the grounds of caste but that there was nothing in legislation that would enable it to bring a case on those grounds. He had to leave his job. I am glad to say that he got another job in the NHS which has gone extremely well. This person was extremely well qualified and well balanced. I was absolutely convinced that he had suffered discrimination on the grounds of caste alone.
The main question before the Committee today is: why have the Government delayed on this for two whole years? I can quite understand their initial response that they needed time to think about it, but why two years? There seem to me to be three possible reasons. The first is a general reluctance to legislate and the realisation that there is a major educational problem to be tackled. Would not the Minister agree that one major tool of education, as we have seen in the issue of race relations, is good law? No one can doubt that the law on discrimination on the grounds of race has had a powerful educational effect. Secondly, people speculate that there is pressure from India. India has very good legislation in theory about that; the problem there is in implementing it in practice. India has good legislation. I see no problem coming from India. On a recent parliamentary visit there myself, I inquired about that but could find no evidence for it. Thirdly, people say that opposition must be coming from some people. Where is that opposition coming from? I must report that there have been increasingly unsatisfactory replies from the Minister in charge of this area. An expression that keeps occurring in letters is,
“those communities potentially most affected … by the introduction of legislative protection against caste discrimination”,
could affect,
“a wide range of Hindu and Sikh communities, not limited to those of any particular caste.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has puzzled over this. We wondered what the implication of this would be for race relations or abolishing apartheid in South Africa. Are we to say that we should not have abolished apartheid in South Africa because other people in the country might be affected by the legislation? That seems absurd.
A letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, was answered by the Minister on 17 May 2012 in which she tried to clarify what was meant by that. After the phrase which I have cited, she said:
“The legislation does indeed refer to ‘caste’ in general, not to any specific caste. Its coverage would therefore be significantly wider than simply an alleged discrimination against the people of the Dalit communities by other, higher-caste Hindus and Sikhs. Against this background, I do not feel it is helpful to partition the debate into ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ communities or to read such meanings into the phrase ‘those communities potentially most affected’”.
Very briefly, there are two points to be made here. First, however widely this might be interpreted, we cannot get away from the fact that there are victims and people who are perpetuating this discrimination. That is a fact. Secondly, even if it does extend more widely, if that discrimination on the grounds of caste, by whatever caste or whatever other caste, offends what is in the 2010 Act—issues of education and the public provision of goods and services—it must still be made illegal. Indeed, it could be interpreted more widely, but if discrimination occurs against another kind of low caste, in Indian terms, rather than the Dalits, we surely ought to try to stop it. I find the answers in those letters increasingly unsatisfactory.
Finally, there is widespread support from other communities. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it supports the amendment. There is strong support from all the UN bodies. I will not cite them because of shortage of time. We have to set this against the worldwide background. My view is that the discrimination against Dalits is an even worse evil than the worst excesses of apartheid. It is even more humiliating in some ways and it is occurring on a much wider scale. There are 270 million Dalit people in the world. We know that in this country there are 200,000. We have to set it against that kind of background. Therefore, it is desperately important that we include in our law in this country, and make it quite clear, that discrimination on the grounds of caste is totally unacceptable. That is the view of the whole range of Dalit organisations in this country.
I very much hope that the Government will be able to claim the credit of accepting the amendment which we are putting forward today.
Lord Avebury
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her sterling work in getting Section 9(5)(a) on the statute book. In 2010, I moved the amendment with the full support of the Government after a meeting attended by large numbers of people representing the anti-discrimination organisations up and down the country and at which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was present. I think that she was suitably impressed by the unanimity of the views expressed at that meeting.
I should also like to pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his sterling work as chair of the All-Party Group for Dalits and for the support that he has always given to the promotion of this provision in the Equality Act. I have worked out that it is nearly three years since the House agreed to insert that provision into the Equality Act, giving the Government the power to add caste to the list of protected characteristics. The Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance had presented evidence that caste discrimination existed in the UK, and the Dalit organisations represented by the ACDA and CasteWatchUK had unanimously requested Parliament to act on the matter. Giving the Government this power was a first step, followed rapidly by, as we have heard, the commissioning of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research study, to confirm what the ACDA had already discovered. The results were published on 16 December 2010 and indeed it found the required evidence, although I am sorry to say that the study was a fairly perfunctory exercise. Even so, it produced the required evidence of discrimination.
When the Government were first asked for their reaction to the NIESR report, they were cautious, but immediately indicated that the coalition was looking for ways of avoiding the issue. They said that this was a different Government from the one that had commissioned the NIESR study and that it had to be considered in the context of their own equality strategy. They needed to consider whether activating Section 9(5)(a) would be “reasonable and proportionate”—words that are repeated in most of the Government’s pro forma statements since then—bearing in mind that a lot of people would be affected by it.
Of course, if there is a great deal of caste discrimination, a lot of people would be affected, but we had understood previously that there were doubts about the existence of discrimination. Now there was at least tacit acknowledgement that this “abhorrent practice”, as the Government called it, was occurring here. But the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, seemed to have already made up her mind that legislation would not deal with the issues behind it. Equally, one could say that legislation did not stamp out the societal roots of racism, misogyny or homophobia. However, it was the main tool for dealing with the overt manifestations of prejudice and a powerful signal of society’s disapproval of the underlying ingrained attitudes of hatred and prejudice against the other.
Having acknowledged that caste discrimination exists, it would be grossly illogical to forgo the use of a weapon against it that is proving effective in the case of all the other protected characteristics in the Equality Act; that is, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sex and sexual orientation. I suggest that there would have to be some reason of principle as to why caste should be treated differently from all those other characteristics. Of course, there is none. We have to analyse the statements of Ministers both verbally and in writing to see what the Government’s real motives are.
Lord Deben
This is not a repeat of the same cast on this subject—I did not mean that and I beg noble Lords’ pardon. I say to the Government that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, was too kind about the previous Government spending time thinking about whether there was enough trouble here to necessitate legislation. I find it utterly impossible to explain to somebody how it is that in this country we do not apply an absolutely clear rule that people are not discriminated against because of what they are—from people who are homosexual at one end to people who are of a particular colour at the other, or people who happen to have particular views. All of them become vulnerable unless we hold to that view, because we are all a bit odd in one way or another. We expect to be treated perfectly properly whatever our position, background, colour, sexual orientation or anything else.
It is impossible—this is a very difficult thing for a politician to say—to build a case for suggesting that caste is different from any of these other things. Having been a Minister for longer than most, I am always suspicious of Ministers who write letters in which certain sentences are almost incomprehensible. It means that they do not want to write the sentence that they ought to write because they suspect that if it is comprehensible people might think that it is not adequate. I make no such claim in these circumstances. However, those of us who listened to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, read out a sentence, had some difficulty in understanding what it meant—whether or not we believed that it might mean something with which we might agree.
All that I say to Ministers is that there are no formulations. Whatever may have been written down, there are no formulations which can get out of the simple statement that it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their caste. I want to say something even tougher. The standards of our nation are not up for grabs. If people want to live in this country according to any system they have to accept the fundamental standards that we have. If you really want to cause difficulties, you do so by saying that “this is a very old view of theirs”, and they have it and it may be pretty nasty: I am afraid that that is not on. In this country we treat everybody equally and properly. That is the basis of our democracy. We cannot accept anything less than that. I do not care what organisation thinks differently.
You could go even further with this argument. You could argue that the positions of all sorts of totalitarian regimes are acceptable, because you can still find some people who support them. But you cannot possibly argue that, and we should not. I hope that the least that the Minister will be able to say is that although this may not be precisely what she wants, she will go away to make sure. I think that there is an overwhelming majority in this House and in the other House who say that caste cannot be treated in any way that is different from race or sexual orientation.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, we have had another powerful debate and the speeches have clearly been impassioned and important. As this issue is so important, the Government have given careful consideration to whether the power in the Equality Act 2010 that would make caste an aspect of race should be exercised.
Let me be clear. We do not think that anyone should suffer prejudice or discrimination, whether because of caste or of any personal characteristic. Such behaviour is wrong. It should not be condoned, whether or not it is prohibited by legislation. However, before bringing in legislation, a responsible Government will ensure that that is the most appropriate way of tackling a specific problem; that the solution does not go substantially wider than the problem that it is meant to address; and that it does not create needless red tape, additional and unnecessary cost burdens for business. That is the essence of what this Bill is about.
Turning to the NIESR research, I am aware that it suggests that some caste discrimination and harassment may exist in areas covered by discrimination legislation. The report also states that it is impossible categorically to determine whether caste discrimination within the meaning of the act has occurred:
“Proof either way was impossible, particularly because evidence was gathered from a single person only”.
That is not saying the same as that there is now a compelling case to legislate. Using the letter of my noble friend Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made her point about whether NIESR had shown that discrimination had occurred. We do not believe that the debate turns on whether there is any discrimination on caste grounds. The debate is about whether legislation is a proportionate response, given the range and nature of the problem.
In response to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, we are not resisting legislation in deference to high-caste views. We are wary of adopting a legislative approach, because we are concerned that that would not be a proportionate solution. The noble and right reverend Lord’s analogy, relating as it did to race, is not therefore appropriate. That said, we must consider whether legislation is necessary. There are examples in the NIESR report of incidents, such as vandalising property or threatening behaviour, that may constitute criminal activity and so would already be captured by domestic law.
Your Lordships should—and, I am sure, do—bear in mind that once legislation was enacted, ensuring the prevention of caste discrimination would become the legal responsibility not just of every public authority but of every private employer, service provider and school throughout England, Scotland and Wales, irrespective of their size or location and of whether they had ever encountered caste or even knew what it was. While I understand the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Deben—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will finish the point that I was about to make. It is not that the legislation would catch all of those public bodies; it is that the process of ensuring that they are properly familiarised to comply with the law could, in our view, be disproportionate to dealing with the discrimination that we are discussing.
Baroness Thornton
My point relates to “disproportionate”. We have legislated in our discrimination law about Travellers. There are actually not very many Travellers in this country but they suffer terrible discrimination. There are thousands of Dalits living in the UK who potentially can be discriminated against, so I am not sure what the proportion is that the noble Baroness is referring to.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness makes a helpful point in drawing a comparison with Gypsies and Travellers. It is domestic case law, not specific legislation, that has determined what we are discussing for Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers and Scottish Gypsy Travellers. They are distinct racial groups who are covered by our equality legislation. It is case law that has done that, rather than legislation.
Lord Deben
As the Minister referred specifically to me, I will say that I have great difficulty with “proportionality” here because it seems to me that if one person is discriminated against, I have a duty to protect them. I do not understand proportionality in these terms. If the law does not reach a position in which someone is found to be discriminated against in the serious ways we are talking about, we had better put it like that. To say that it is disproportionate is like saying—let me be very blunt—that if not many people are murdered, we do not actually need to have a law on murder. I am sorry, we do; it is not acceptable. It is the one area where disproportion is not credible. This is what really worries me about this argument.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I understand the point that my noble friend makes, but it takes us back to the point about evidence. I refer again to the NIESR research, which suggests that some caste discrimination and harassment may exist but also says that,
“it is impossible to categorically determine whether caste discrimination and harassment within the meaning of the Act has occurred”.
Lord Avebury
I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again; I know that she has been very patient. However, if the argument is that you do not deal with this problem because very small numbers of people are discriminated against on the grounds of caste, what does she have to say about gender reassignment, which is one of the protected characteristics? Should we have avoided placing gender reassignment on the list of protected characteristics because not many people are affected by it?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
In simple terms, the protected characteristics are characteristics that we all share; we all have a sex, a race and an age. I think the point in dispute was debated on previous legislation.
I will conclude by saying that we have thought long and hard about this legislative power and about why making this change in a Bill designed to encourage enterprise and streamline regulation would be inappropriate. However, I am very happy to accept the noble Baroness’s proposal of a meeting. We also acknowledge that uncertainty as to what is to happen on the issue of caste discrimination in Great Britain helps no one.
My noble friend made reference to the letter that he received from my right honourable friend Maria Miller and her reference to the fact that we expect to be able to make a fuller announcement on the Government’s intentions on this matter shortly. I certainly will do all in my power to ensure that, as far as is possible, we do so before we get to the next stage of this Bill.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
The Minister has quoted a couple of times from the report to the effect that it was not clear that this particular form of harassment was carried out on grounds of caste. If she looks at the report, I think she will see that that refers to something quite specific and in no way undermines the overall conclusion that there is clear evidence of discrimination on the grounds of caste. I think she will find that that uncertainty about caste refers to a particular kind of harassment. It does not undermine the main findings. In the light of her reply, I wish to go back to the evidence that I gave just now about my personal interview with someone who clearly had been discriminated against on grounds of caste. When they went to their union adviser, while they were very sympathetic, the union adviser said that a case could not be taken on the grounds of caste because it was not in the law. Will the Minister suggest on what grounds that person should therefore go to law if there is no law at the moment which applies to a person’s being discriminated against?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Without the full facts of the case, I am afraid that it is not possible for me to respond to an individual case in that way. The best I can do is, as I have indicated, to say that I am very happy to have a meeting to discuss matters further outside the Committee. However, I know that it is important that we now draw the debate today to a close.
Baroness Thornton
I say a big thank you to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because I am honoured to be fighting alongside them again—the old team is back. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, enormously for his comments. I remember some issues from when I was a Minister—I think “contaminated blood” was the one that haunted me. The Government just got it wrong: we got it wrong all the way through. This Government came and dealt with it in the way in which my Government should have done. This is one of those issues. The Government are getting this wrong and they need to remedy it. I have enormous respect for the Minister and I am very grateful that she has agreed to have those meetings. I am hopeful that when we have those meetings we will make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Participation of Arabs in Public Life
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent census results in which 240,000 respondents described themselves as “Arab”, what plans they have to promote the wider participation of Arabs in public life in the United Kingdom.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, we warmly welcome the contribution of Arabs to public life in the United Kingdom and the formal recognition of this group in the 2011 census. The Government’s integration policy document, Creating the Conditions for Integration, sets out our approach to successfully bringing together local communities. We will continue to support the integration of Arabs and all other groups into mainstream communities and their participation in local life.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She is particularly well qualified, if I may say so, to help take this sort of issue forward. Perhaps she will comment on two further aspects. First, can local authorities with substantial Arab communities benefit from experiences in different parts of the country of holding seminars and cultural events where Arab participants play a specific part in taking projects forward and generally help to break the ice? Secondly, there are no Arabs in this House. Given the two very special relationships that we have in the Middle East—a topic that we debate endlessly—is not the lack of Arab participation here in very sharp contrast to the strong and indeed excellent contribution made by noble Lords with more affinity with Israel? Both communities in Britain are roughly the same size.
Baroness Warsi
I know that the noble Lord has had an interest in this matter for a number of years, and indeed pushed hard for Arabs to be included as an individual category in the 2011 census. He will be aware from the census data that the majority—just over 50%—of those who self-identity as Arabs reside in the south. The Government do not have a specific policy of engaging with groups purely on the basis of their race or religion. However, the Government do have a policy of creating conditions—both shared spaces and shared experiences—where communities from different backgrounds can come together. In relation to the noble Lord’s second question, I would welcome a member of the Arab community becoming a Member of this House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, that the noble Baroness is really an excellent Minister to answer this Question. However, does the fact that it is for the Department for Communities and Local Government and she is a Foreign Office Minister indicate that there is some difficulty in recruiting people from the Back Benches to serve as Ministers in the House of Lords? Can she explain to the House why there is such difficulty and when we might expect to see some brave men and women step forward to the front line to defend the indefensible?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord clearly does not know me as well as perhaps other noble Lords do. I am a Minister in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government, so I am simply doing my job.
Lord Tomlinson
Going back to the serious part of the original Question, would the noble Baroness agree with me if I suggest that the best way for the 240,000 people who describe themselves as being Arab to participate in public life is to go through the normal procedures for gaining citizenship of this country and then participate on the same basis as any other citizen?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord will be aware, as will other noble Lords, that there are many people from the Arab community—people who identify themselves as Arab—resident in this country who were born here or are British citizens. Many are extremely successful, such as Dr Hany El-Banna, the co-founder of Islamic Relief; a rower from the Arab community took part in the Olympics. I go back to the approach that this Government have, which is not to engage with communities purely on the basis of their race and religion. It is right for the Government to create the conditions by ensuring that there are no barriers to integration and equipping people with the appropriate language, opportunities and spaces to meet people of different communities and achieve their full potential.
Lord Soley
As chairman of the Arab-Jewish Forum, I think the Minister might agree with me—and I hope she does—that there are a large number of Arabs who participate as local councillors or school governors, and on a range of other issues, but they do not always get recognised. A few years ago, I very nearly got an Arab to be a Member of this House but unfortunately he got squeezed out, as people do given the vast numbers coming in these days. My noble friend, who raised this question, is absolutely right. It would be sensible. There are a lot of Arabs in this country who are full citizens and take part very fully, and it should not be impossible for one of them to be a Member of this House. Even bearing in mind that I go around saying this House is far too big in number, the principle is right.
Baroness Warsi
I agree with the noble Lord that there are many Arabs playing a hugely influential role in large parts of society, including as councillors. I think the noble Lord will also agree that those who identify themselves as Arabs have many different countries of origin, backgrounds and, indeed, religions—there are many people who are Arab and Christian or Arab and Muslim, for example. I agree with him. Another hugely successful Arab is Sir Magdi Habib Yacoub, whom many will know as a world-leading transplant surgeon.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is the Minister aware that under our constitution, only British and Commonwealth citizens can sit in this House? We almost lost the latter but at the last hour of the last Government we managed to reinstate the right of Commonwealth citizens and those of the Irish Republic. Do these questions about Arabs in this House relate to people who still look on their origins as Arab but are now British citizens?
Baroness Warsi
We are talking about people who self-identify on the census as Arab. People identify themselves in relation to nationality, ethnicity and religion. When I filled in the census data, I identified myself as British, of Pakistani origin and Muslim. These are people who are very much integrated into British society.
Taxation: Tax Havens
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to tackling tax avoidance and evasion wherever it occurs. This is an issue of international concern on which we work closely with European Union member states and other countries, in particular through the G20. The G20 focus has been on increasing international tax transparency and identifying gaps in the international tax standard to help better address profit shifting and erosion of the corporate tax base at the global level.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I have a terrible suspicion that the Minister is saying, in effect, that nothing is happening. Perhaps I may ask him this. If the Government fail to get international agreement quickly, could we as a country at least move forward by doing two things? First, could we take action in those territories where we have power or influence? Secondly, could we change the basis of taxation of those companies that do not claim any profits in this country by basing the tax on turnover rather than on bogus low-profit figures?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the accounting rules are internationally based and it makes sense to change them on an international basis. That is why we, France and Germany, between us, have given €450,000 over recent months to the OECD to come forward with proposals to deal with this issue. Those proposals will come forward and there will be a progress report in February. There is a strong head of steam in this country and in France, Germany and the US to tackle this issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, could my noble friend just remind us what action was taken by the last Labour Government between 1997 and 2010—over those 13 years—on tax havens? Is it not extraordinary that we now have such enthusiasm from the Benches opposite to do something, when they had that opportunity and, I believe, did nothing?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government greatly welcome the enthusiasm from the Benches opposite for the initiatives which we are now taking.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, global agreement is clearly important and I am glad that the noble Lord and the Government are seeking it. However, that will take a very long time. Would it not be better to do as I think my noble friend Lord Dubs was saying—to seek agreement among some of the smaller areas where countries are doing these things, such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Are we doing anything there?
Lord Newby
My Lords, there has been a lot of activity to increase transparency in relation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man so that we can now request information about an individual’s tax affairs. A major change is that we are moving towards what is called an enhanced automatic tax information exchange, the first of which was signed with the Isle of Man. This means that every year we will automatically get details of the tax affairs of UK-based individuals with accounts in those countries. We will find out what payments have been made into bank accounts in those countries so that we can make sure that those people are paying adequate amounts of tax. That deals with individuals, however, whereas the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, deals more with corporates.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the Minister’s comment. On 1 January the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, commonly known as FATCA, came into force in the United States. This Act requires all foreign financial institutions—banks, credit unions, pension managers and insurance companies—to find out which of their clients are liable for US tax and to send details of their account balances and transactions to the US authorities. When can we have our own FATCA—and I do not mind if we call it FATCAT—in the UK?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we signed the first agreement based on the FATCA principles with the Isle of Man in December. What is very significant about that Act is that places such as the Cayman Islands will be required to provide automatic information directly to the US about US citizens. We are now in negotiations with all Crown dependencies and overseas territories to see whether we can put in place equivalent provisions with them. If we do, it will revolutionise the amount of information that we get about the affairs of British citizens who are due to pay tax here and who have bank accounts in those territories.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the root of the problem, beyond discussion and consensus, is a grotesque disparity between the tax authorities and the taxpayers in this country? It is not David and Goliath but David without a sling and Goliath. Unless we do something about that disparity between the numbers and quality of advisers available to unscrupulous taxpayers, on the one hand, and those available to HMRC, on the other, we can forget about the rest.
Lord Newby
Absolutely, my Lords. That is why the Government agreed to put another £900 million during the lifetime of this Parliament into this kind of activity and why we announced in the Autumn Statement that we would add to that another £77 million, which we reckon will bring in £2 billion. The other important thing, in addition to this equalisation of technical expertise, if you like, is that consumers should continue to shine a spotlight on companies that may not be paying the amount of tax that most people would think is reasonable.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, although I welcome the progress made with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord on what basis Crown dependencies and overseas territories could refuse information to the Government on this crucial issue.
Lord Newby
As the noble Lord knows, my Lords, any arrangement with any overseas territory or Crown dependency has to be a formal arrangement and agreement. We are not a dictator going into these countries. We are negotiating agreements with them on the FATCA principles and I hope very much that we will conclude those agreements relatively soon.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, although the additional £900 million being allocated to HMRC for tax investigations is to be welcomed, will the Minister confirm that the department is also being required to effect very substantial savings which will in fact lead to several thousand staff leaving over the next three years and that this, in turn, could interfere with its means of operating? Is not the root of the issue really about transparency? We should not simply call on consumer groups to seek to get transparency on tax issues—the Government themselves should give a lead to the whole of society in moving towards greater transparency on tax issues. Although my party may not have done that when it was in power, one hopes that some of us may be able to persuade it to do so in future if the present Government will not.
Lord Newby
My Lords, on the latter point, we are doing a lot to try to improve the way in which the system operates. As I said, however, much of the required change in law has to be based on international agreement. As for the resources available to HMRC, it is true that there is a reduction in staff at HMRC. One of the principal drivers for this has been that the way in which HMRC does its business has changed fundamentally given electronic communications—for example, large numbers of people now submit tax returns electronically. The resource needed to deal with that, in terms of numbers, is very significantly less. We are trying to make sure that we beef up those parts of HMRC that collect tax and go after those who have been seeking to avoid it. I think that we are achieving considerable success in that.
Homosexuality in Nigeria and Uganda
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the governments of Uganda and Nigeria about legislation regarding the treatment of homosexuals in those countries.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, the British Government are strongly committed to upholding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights bilaterally and with international partners. We have raised concerns about the proposed anti-homosexuality Bill being considered by the Ugandan Parliament at very senior levels. Most recently, the Minister for Africa raised the issue with President Museveni during a visit to Uganda on 21 November. We have made clear our objection to the Nigerian same-sex marriage prohibition Bill at all levels of government through our High Commission in Abuja and through the European Union Working Group on Human Rights, most recently in December 2012.
Lord Lexden
My noble friend’s strong expression of concern about the treatment of homosexuals in Uganda and Nigeria will be widely welcomed and appreciated. What measures are in place to ensure that violations of the human rights of homosexuals in those two countries are carefully monitored and raised with their Governments? What steps have been taken to ensure that asylum is available here for those fleeing persecution? Given the commitment in the coalition agreement to use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights, what success are the Government having, in association with other member states, in encouraging the Commonwealth to work collectively in accordance with its own public commitments for the dismantling of the laws that violate so grossly the human rights of homosexuals?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend raises a number of important issues. We take LGBT rights very seriously. The matter has been raised publicly and privately by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We also support a number of NGOs on the ground, in both Uganda and Nigeria, that work to support the LGBT community and do work in relation to HIV/AIDS support and information, which relates to those communities as well as others. Asylum applications are considered, as are any other asylum applications, under the convention.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, would the Government consider amending Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to provide that gay men from Nigeria have an in-country right of appeal against refusal of an asylum application, as gay women from Nigeria already do? Before making any further representations to the Government of Uganda, will the Government consult Sexual Minorities Uganda, the umbrella NGO that campaigns for legal and social equality for LGBT people in that country?
Baroness Warsi
As my noble friend is aware from previous Questions, unsuccessful asylum claimants have a right of appeal to the UK courts. Designation under Section 94(5) does not deny a right of appeal to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual applicants from designated countries, including Nigeria. However, claims from nationals of designated countries for non-suspensive appeals that are clearly unfounded must be certified as such and therefore can be appealed only from outside the United Kingdom. There are no plans at this stage to change this.
On my noble friend’s second question, the British High Commission in Kampala is in regular contact with the NGO that he mentioned—Sexual Minorities Uganda—and other Ugandan civil society groups that are campaigning for improved human rights in Uganda. We have in the past provided funding for organisations, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, for training, advocacy and the cost of legal cases related to the protection of LGBT communities and human rights.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister consult with Lambeth Palace and the incoming most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on these issues, since Lambeth has considerable experience of relating to these two countries in particular, and of challenging their human rights records?
Baroness Warsi
We know that the church has networks in both Uganda and Nigeria. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has called upon those networks in discussions in order to use them as influence and opinion-formers in those countries. We will continue to make sure that that contact remains strong.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, will the Government support the recommendation of the Eminent Persons Group to the 2011 meeting that all Commonwealth nations should now be required to respect the rights of homosexuals?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord will of course be aware of the Commonwealth charter, which specifically talks about the importance of non-discrimination on any grounds, including homosexuality.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I have now read two reports that indicate that a majority of Commonwealth countries have laws in one form or another that are oppressive towards gay men and, in many of those cases, towards women as well. Supplementing the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might the Government have it in mind to see significant revisions of the Harare principles so that there is absolute clarity that equality of status is a key principle for all oppressed groups in the Commonwealth?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord will be aware that homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, as are same-sex relationships in Nigeria. We take the position that we do and we make our submissions very clear, but it is important to note that, unfortunately, at present the positions of those two countries are supported by a large number of their parliamentarians and public.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Is it useful for the Minister to know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, met the recently formed Joint Committee on Human Rights in Uganda last month and we seemed to get somewhere in emphasising that anti-sodomy laws are a most undesirable colonial legacy that an independent African country should move beyond?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend presents us with an alternative line of argument but I assure him, as I assure other noble Lords, that we use all avenues, appropriate measures and opportunities to make our views clear.
Bahrain
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the decision by the highest court in Bahrain on 7 January to uphold life sentences imposed on eight opposition figures and human rights activists.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, we are deeply dismayed by the decision to uphold sentences against this group of political activists. We have previously commented that at the time that these individuals were originally convicted, reports acknowledged by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry suggested that some defendants had been abused in detention, denied access to legal counsel and coerced into confessing.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the Minister Mr Alistair Burt for the expression of concern. My noble friend will recall that the Bassiouni commission of inquiry said that the sentences of political detainees should be commuted and that they should be compensated for the tortures that they endured, and the King said that he accepted those recommendations. Why are we not pressing the King to honour his promises? Do the Government recognise that there is not the faintest possibility of dialogue, reconciliation or peace on the streets as long as the martyrs remain in custody?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend raises an important point. He will be aware that the BICI—the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry—did not consider the National Safety Courts, the special military courts set up to try people arrested during the disturbances, to be the correct method, and therefore recommended a retrial. The current prisoners that my noble friend speaks about were subsequently retried and sentenced. They appealed that sentence but unfortunately it has been upheld. He is right to say that not all the BICI recommendations have been implemented. I met the Foreign Minister in November last year and I can assure my noble friend and other noble Lords that our conversation was frank, robust and honest. I made it very clear that we expect progress to be made in relation to both the BICI recommendations and the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister make it clear to the Bahraini ambassador in London that the sending of hampers from Fortnum & Mason to Members of the British Parliament will have no influence on our judgments on human rights matters? It is not the way that we do business in this country.
Baroness Warsi
These issues are far too serious for anyone—Members of this House, Members of the other place or, indeed, the Bahraini embassy—to consider that matters can be brushed under the carpet or under a hamper.
Lord Deben
Is the Minister sure that the Bahraini Government understand just how seriously we take this? I have a feeling that it will be seen as merely the sort of thing that we do and say because we are that kind of country. I hope that she will enable Bahrain to understand that the future of our relationship depends on its behaving in a civilised way. If it does not, there really must be an understanding that that will change entirely the way that we deal with Bahrain.
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend makes an important point. We have a strong relationship—a strong friendship—with Bahrain. It is because that friendship is so strong that we can have very honest conversations. I assure him that, from the Prime Minister through to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible for Bahrain, and in the discussions that I have had, we do not lose any opportunity to raise these concerns. We get real support from the other side: there is a willingness to move these matters forward. As I said in my recent discussions with the Foreign Minister, the more that can be achieved and the more progress that can be shown in terms of these recommendations from the BICI and the UPR, the better this relationship will become.
Lord Judd
In the Government’s negotiations or conversations with the Government of Bahrain, do they take the opportunity not only to raise this issue in human rights terms but to point out forcefully to the Bahrain Government that to indulge in disproportionate action of this kind is to play into the hands of extremists who seek to capture the desire of countless ordinary people for progress and human rights developments within that country, and that the way to ensure security for their country is to avoid like the plague counterproductive action?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is right that whenever you close down the space for legitimate protest, you start increasing the space where extremism can thrive. Those are the points that we make. But noble Lords may take some comfort from the fact that in the Universal Periodic Review to which Bahrain submitted itself last year, of the 176 international recommendations that came back, 143 were adopted in full and 13 partially. Therefore, progress was made by international concerted action.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, will the Minister give assurances that the strength of the Government’s ongoing protest at these decisions of Bahrain’s highest court will not be compromised or weakened by any other considerations? I am sure that she would agree that it is vital that we are consistent in our speaking up for those suffering injustice, and that we uphold individual freedoms of speech and expression of that, as well as, as has been referred to already, their protection from abuse in detention or anywhere else.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, my noble friend is probably not aware that I raised this matter of Bahraini human rights with the Foreign Secretary as long ago as September 2010, and he assured me that, due to our excellent relations with the Government of Bahrain, these at that point relatively minor human rights transgressions would be sorted out. The situation has only got worse since then. Will my noble friend please go back and suggest that the matter also be taken up with the Saudi Interior Minister, who I understand is visiting the United Kingdom at the moment, and indeed the whole of the Gulf Cooperation Council, because simply talking to Bahrain and hoping that good relations will solve the issue will not do so?
Baroness Warsi
I assure my noble friend that we are not simply talking and hoping, and that some specifics have been put in place. The BICI recommendations are a starting point, and the UPR built on that. We have had some recent progress, in that legislation will be introduced to reduce the ban on associations and assembly. There have also been some specific incidents whereby permits have been given for those protests to take place. So progress is constantly being made; it is not simply a question of our talking and hoping.
Parliamentary Privilege
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the Commons message of 4 December be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege presented to both Houses on 26 April (Cm 8318) and that, notwithstanding the resolution of the House of 28 May, the committee should report by 25 April 2013;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
L Bew, L Brabazon of Tara, L Davies of Stamford, B Healy of Primrose Hill, L Shutt of Greetland, B Stedman-Scott.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Select Committees
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Hill of Oareford be appointed a member of the following Committees, in the place of Lord Strathclyde: House, Liaison, Privileges and Conduct, Procedure and Selection.
Lord Tyler
I enthusiastically welcome my noble friend the new Leader of the House as an addition to all these committees, and particularly to the Procedure Committee on which I serve. However, can the Chairman of Committees confirm that, as presently scheduled, the Procedure Committee is not due to meet again until 18 March? Would it not be appropriate to ask the new Leader of the House whether he would be prepared to come to a special meeting of the Procedure Committee? I am well aware that a large number of issues are outstanding from the report of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices of your Lordships’ House. It is time, after nearly two years, that we took stock of what progress we have or have not made on those issues. No doubt, the new Leader of the House would wish to make sure that the committee was made aware of his own personal approach to these issues and that we should take an early opportunity to do so.
The report from the Procedure Committee which is coming up later in your Lordships’ House deals only very peripherally with some of these important outstanding issues. I am sure that the Chairman of Committees would agree that after nearly two years and some very important work undertaken by that Leader’s Group we should give them the attention that they demand. The input of the new Leader of the House would be very welcome in that respect. Will he please consider a special meeting of the Procedure Committee?
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is, as always, ingenious in the way that he brings matters before your Lordships’ House. I can certainly agree with him that there are matters still outstanding from the Goodlad report that have not been addressed in detail. I should have thought that it would be better to allow the new Leader time to study and reflect before we have a meeting. On balance I think it would be better if we stuck to the scheduled meeting and did not have a special meeting.
Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft order laid before the House on 22 October 2012 be approved.
Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Transforming Rehabilitation
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.
“This Government are committed to an ambitious programme of social reform, even at a time of financial constraints. Major changes have already been delivered in welfare and education to tackle the challenge of endemic welfare dependence and educational underperformance, particularly in deprived areas. In the coalition agreement, the Government also promised to introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to tackle the unacceptable cycle of reoffending, and today I am publishing a consultation paper entitled Transforming Rehabilitation: a revolution in the way we manage offenders. We need a tough but intelligent criminal justice system that both punishes people properly when they break the law and also supports them to get their lives back on track so that they do not commit crime again in the future.
Despite significant increases in government spending on offender management during the past decade, reoffending remains consistently and unacceptably high. In 2010 nearly half of prisoners were reconvicted within a year of release. This rate is even higher for short-sentenced prisoners, the great majority of whom currently receive little or no support.
Failing to divert offenders away from crime has a wide impact. The Ministry of Justice alone spent more than £4 billion on prisons and offender management in 2011-12 and the wider cost of this failure is considerable. The National Audit Office estimated that the economic cost of reoffending by recent ex-prisoners was as much as £13 billion in 2007-8. I am clear that we cannot continue as before. In difficult economic times, delivering real reform requires a dramatically different approach. We cannot afford not to do this.
My proposals seek a new emphasis on life management and mentoring support for offenders in order to address the problems that lead them to turn to crime again and again. For the first time, all offenders, including those serving less than 12 months, will be subject to mandatory supervision and tailored rehabilitation on release from prison. These offenders have some of the highest reoffending rates but currently no statutory provision after the halfway point of their sentence. I want to ensure that persistent offenders do not walk out of the prison gates with £46 in their pockets and little or nothing else.
My vision is very simple. When someone leaves prison, I want them already to have a mentor in place. I want them to be met at the prison gate, have a place to live sorted out and to have a package of support set up, be it training or drug treatment or an employability course. I also want them to have someone they can turn to as a wise friend as they try to turn their lives around.
I intend to open up the market for probation services so that we can combine the expertise that exists within the public sector probation service with the innovation and dynamism of private and voluntary providers. These radical reforms are underpinned by the principles of the big society. Enabling voluntary sector organisations fully to participate in transforming rehabilitation, harnessing their expertise and making the most of existing local links will be vital to delivering the reoffending reductions we need to see.
Providers will be commissioned to deliver community orders and licence requirements for the majority of offenders and will be paid by results to reduce reoffending. They will be expected to tackle the causes of reoffending and help offenders to turn their lives around. And through the introduction of payment by results, providers from all sectors will have a clear incentive to rehabilitate offenders. We will pay in full only for services that successfully reduce reoffending.
Services will be commissioned nationally and delivered across broader geographical areas. I am committed that the new system will continue to make best use of local expertise and to integrate into existing local structures. Potential providers will have to be clear as to how they would sustain local partnerships in contracts and commissioning which will be informed by local intelligence.
Extending rehabilitation to more offenders will introduce new costs to the system and I believe that these can be balanced by drawing more providers into the system. Through increased use of competition we can generate efficiency savings and drive down unit costs across the system, allowing our funding to go further.
The public sector probation service does an important job in protecting the public and the Government are very clear about the value and expertise it brings. We want to use that expertise as we transform our approach to rehabilitation. There will be a continuing critical role for the public sector, which will include advising the courts and assessing the risk an offender poses to the public. Offenders who pose the highest risk of serious harm to the public will continue to be managed directly by the public sector and the public sector will retain ultimate responsibility for public protection.
These proposals will make a significant change to the system, delivering the Government’s commitment to real reform. They will fulfil the coalition commitment to introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ and will realise our ambition to apply payment by results across offender rehabilitation services by the end of 2015.
Transforming rehabilitation will help to ensure that all those sentenced to prison or community sentences are properly punished while being supported to turn their backs on crime for good, meaning lower crime, fewer victims and safer communities. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State and offer him my congratulations that he has not apparently joined the current exodus from the government Front Bench. Clearly, he does not yet feel in need of rehabilitation outside this House.
I am also grateful for having had prior sight of the Statement repeated by the Minister, which is more than the courtesy that was extended to my colleague, the shadow Minister of Justice in the House of Commons.
The Government have issued a consultation document but today appear to have made clear their chosen method of achieving what I am sure we would all agree is an important objective: namely, further reductions in the rate of reoffending. The crime rate fell throughout the period of office of the previous Government, which suggests, first, that that Government were effective in addressing the incidence of crime; and that the agencies involved, including the probation service, were doing a good job. The probation service is staffed by committed professionals who help to keep our communities safe. This was recognised by the fact that, in 2011, it was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence and in that year the performance of every single probation trust was rated by the Government as either good or exceptional.
Can the Minister clear up one point? It has been suggested to me that, earlier today, the Secretary of State made the statement that he wanted to professionalise the probation service. On the face of it, that would seem an extraordinary thing to say and I would be very grateful if, when he comes to respond, the Minister could confirm that the Secretary of State made no such statement.
The Minister is a great admirer of the probation service. On 30 October, he told us:
“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.]
In the light of the Minister’s statement just over two and a half months ago that the probation service is excellent and that he is in awe of the responsibilities that probation officers take on, do the Government’s intentions involve taking any work currently undertaken by probation officers and probation support officers away from them? Or do the Government’s proposals represent an extension of rehabilitation work involving the private and voluntary sectors which will not lead to any noticeable reduction in the number of probation officers and probation support officers?
For some time now, the probation service has been working in partnership with the private sector and voluntary groups. There is already excellent work taking place in partnership around the country. Bringing in outside experience and innovation and working together in partnership to reduce reoffending is not something new. However, to what extent do the Government intend that true partnership continues? To what extent do they envisage the wholesale transfer of key areas of probation service work to the private and voluntary sectors—in other words, straight outsourcing? If the latter is the case, is it the Government’s view that the private and voluntary sectors are more effective and efficient than the probation service—which the Minister so rightly admires and respects—or do the Government believe that it can be done more cheaply outside the probation service, perhaps because those involved in the rehabilitation work will be paid less?
It was with a view to looking for new ways to address the issue of reoffending that the previous Government began a pilot of a payment-by-results model in Peterborough. This was presumably why the previous Secretary of State launched two payment-by-results pilots in probation trusts. It is, of course, right to test properly and try out fundamentally new ways of working, because there is no history in criminal justice of payment by results. Interestingly, however, the Secretary of State chose to cancel the two payment-by-results pilots set up by his predecessor. Can the Minister tell us why? To the best of my knowledge, no proper evaluation has been carried out of the success, or otherwise, of those two pilots. Indeed, no proper evaluation has yet been carried out of the Peterborough pilot. What is the hard, evaluated, published evidence on which the Government are basing their intentions?
The current Secretary of State has form when it comes to introducing payment-by-results schemes that have not been properly tested and evaluated. He clearly prefers gut instinct or ideology over hard evidence. The current Secretary of State was responsible for the Work Programme, which involves payment by results. Payment by results is precisely what we are seeing: a lot of payment and few results. According to the National Audit Office, which presumably has a fair idea of what it is talking about, of the 800,000 people who started the Work Programme, only 3.5% were still in work after six months and not a single provider had hit their target. Indeed, there seems to have been a lot of subcontracting going on in the Work Programme which makes it much more difficult to identify where the responsibility lies for failing to perform. This is a factor that needs to be looked at when assessing the Government’s intentions for payment by results in our criminal justice system. It is also no secret that increasing numbers of smaller companies are walking away from involvement in the Work Programme, and that factor ought also to be borne in mind when considering the Government’s proposals on probation and rehabilitation and an intention to have greater involvement of smaller organisations including those in the voluntary sector. Where will accountability lie under the Government’s stated intentions, particularly in a situation where there may be considerable subcontracting?
The Secretary of State is proposing that only low and medium-risk offenders will be dealt with by private companies. Can the Minister confirm that medium-risk offenders include those who have committed domestic violence and burglary? Why is it that if the Secretary of State has confidence in probation retaining supervision of high-risk offenders, he does not have confidence in it to supervise low and medium-risk offenders? Is it, in reality, all about reducing costs rather than rehabilitation and further reducing reoffending?
Given that one in four offenders’ risk level fluctuates during their term on licence, is the Minister satisfied that the payment-by-results model will be able to take that into account? In that regard, how does he propose that the police and other public bodies share with the private sector their sensitive information about offenders with whom they have dealings?
The Secretary of State is seeking to increase the level and extent of supervisions and rehabilitation of offenders, and no one would disagree with that as an objective. However, is this all to be done within existing budgeted and planned levels of resources, not least financial resources? Or is it the intention at some later date to provide an increase in resources? If it is the intention that there will be no extra resources, what will happen if existing resources prove to be insufficient to achieve the Government’s intentions?
Finally, if the Government move significant chunks of rehabilitation work and reoffending reduction work currently carried out by the public sector probation service into the private and voluntary sector, will that work continue to be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, or will the changes that the Government clearly intend to make mean, as far as this part of the criminal justice system is concerned, that we will be moving to a more secretive and less transparent operation, with less information being available in the public domain? Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that in the Government’s proposals there will be no reduction in the areas or extent of activity covered by the Freedom of Information Act?
We support the objective of seeking further to reduce reoffending. However, the devil is in the detail and the means. We will look carefully at the consultation document and hope that it provides reassurances that have been sadly missing from the Secretary of State’s Statement.
Lord McNally
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for those closing remarks of welcome for the initiative. As he quite rightly said, the devil will be in the detail and it is quite right that now and subsequently the House and the public will probe and test these proposals.
The word “professionalise” was in no way a pejorative statement by my right honourable friend—quite the contrary. I think I have mentioned before in the House that I would like the probation service and its work to be recognised as a profession, perhaps ultimately by a chartered institute of probation. It was in that context that the Secretary of State was talking about a professionalised service—the recognition of probation work as a proper profession, which indeed it is.
I took on board points that should be recognised: we are building on existing patterns of partnership that were first established by the previous Government, both in the legislation that we are using—the 2007 Act—and the various pilots that they initiated in their closing years. This question of pilots is very difficult. On my first day in office in 2010, I was told about the Peterborough and Doncaster pilots. Two years later, whenever one was asked about progress in these areas, one would say: “Well, we are still piloting”. There is a danger in policy development that you pilot for ever. You learn lessons as they go along, but at some time there is a need for Ministers to take a decision and develop a policy, and that is what we are doing here.
There is always a kind of elephant trap in any programme of reform. If you claim that there is a need for reform, are you being condemnatory about those who are carrying out the existing policy? The answer is no, as the noble Lord said, and I have been on record in this House about my admiration for the probation service as it is and the work that it does. My noble friend has proposed changes that we believe will bring a combination of greater efficiency and effectiveness and new ideas into the treatment of offenders. That is the thrust of the policy. Whether offenders who are taken under the wing of private and voluntary sector providers have committed “burglary and domestic violence” or something else, what is certain is that whoever comes within that assessment, their risk assessment will have been carefully carried out by professionals before they move into that sector. That risk assessment will be part of the ongoing role of the professional probation service and will be taken into account when it is decided whether a person is suitable for rehabilitation work that involves payment by results.
The noble Lord also asked whether existing resources would be used. The answer is yes; this is the plan, this is the whole point. As I pointed out, we are spending £4 billion—no small amount—per year on keeping people in prison and in keeping people supervised by probation. What the document suggests—and we hope that the debate that it initiates will develop this—that the £4 billion will be spent a lot more effectively than at the moment. We can do so more effectively within prisons and more effectively outside prisons.
One of the things that the Secretary of State was very much influenced by was his work at the DWP—the noble Lord referred to that experience. The DWP was one of the first government departments to take the initiative of going into prisons to enable prisoners to prepare for release and to go on to the Work Programme. That certainly convinced my noble friend that what are termed “through the gate” policies are extremely effective in making rehabilitation possible.
I remember talking to a young ex-offender on her rehabilitation programme in Birmingham, who said to me, “Lord McNally, you cannot imagine the feeling of fear and foreboding when you stand at the prison gates, the gates close behind you, and you have £46 in your pocket and nowhere to go and no friends and you don’t know what to do next”. It is not surprising that we get this high rate of offending.
One thing that has struck me in the two and a half years that I have been in this job is that, when you go around prisons, you find lots of initiatives and ideas that work—for example, a small charity going into prison and helping prisoners to find accommodation before their release, banks being willing to help prisoners to get their finances right, and private sector employers who are willing to put training programmes into place in prisons and then offer work when prisoners are released. It has been put to me before that the best guarantees against reoffending are somewhere to live, a job and a relationship. In a way, what we are trying to do in a holistic way is to bring in other departments to meet those needs and to make sure that there are alternatives.
On freedom of information, the Secretary of State made it clear in answering questions that it will be the providers’ responsibility to set out in contracts a clear commitment to transparency, but this will be considered as part of the consultation. In that respect, the noble Lord made a very valid point.
As I have said before, I hope that the probation service remains intact as a key part of our offender management arrangements, with responsibility for the most serious offenders and with oversight of the performance of those from the private and voluntary sectors who will be involved in this. I hope that the service will see it not as a threat but as an opportunity for it to play an important role in rehabilitation and to work in the kind of partnerships that the noble Lord referred to, bringing out the best of both the voluntary and private sectors and the qualities that already exist within our public sector.
I hope that the House and indeed the country will take this document as an invitation to have a serious debate about a serious problem. I have always believed that prison works but so do a lot of other things, and it is ridiculous for us as a country to spend £40,000 a year on keeping people in prison and for that to be a revolving door process whereby they go back into prison time and again. That is what this document and this debate will be about.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, a major contributor to reoffending in the past has been the lack of support for prisoners on release, who at present often come out with very little money, as my noble friend has pointed out, nowhere to go and usually no work to do. Will the Minister ensure that the really welcome new commitment to mentoring and support for all prisoners on release is quickly implemented, properly resourced and thoroughly monitored by government?
Lord McNally
Yes, I hope so. I hope that one thing that is seen as a real breakthrough in these proposals is that we will be extending support services to those sentenced to less than 12 months. As many studies have shown, those short sentences have often been the source of most reoffending. Again, to make the point that there is a more holistic approach than that, in the Crime and Courts Bill we are trying to make community sentencing more acceptable to the public by putting a kind of punishment element into them so that they are not seen as the soft option to prison. That is another part of what we are trying to do, as is involving other departments such as the DWP and those dealing with health and social services. It is clear that a more holistic approach to rehabilitation is going to get the most results.
Lord Morgan
The statement very properly deals with some very important issues in our society, such as the high rate of reoffending. The great bulk of offences are committed by people who have already offended and this is adding to the pressure in our prisons; there is also the absence of an integrated system to deal with offenders who, as the noble Lord has said, are immediately thrust back into the community with £46 and no other help and very often no hope. The proposals have important merits which we should recognise right across the House. There is a programme for the rehabilitation of prisoners when they are released; they are not just thrown into the community. There is also an integrated proposal for mentoring them in relation to their problems and particular needs; for example, dealing with drugs or alcohol. There are already examples of this kind of approach, notably the Parc prison in Bridgend, south Wales, and this is very welcome.
I would like to ask the Minister two general questions. The policy of payments by results by private institutions is not one, as my noble friend said, that has been universally successful or indeed effective. Perhaps we could be told a bit more about these geographical regions which will be used to assess whether or not the policy of rehabilitation has been successful. Will there be any uniformity of definition about these regions? What will be deemed a successful result? If someone committing a very serious crime is then back in prison for committing a somewhat lesser crime, is that a successful result or not? I would also ask for reassurance for the probation service at a time when it is experiencing great dislocation and demoralisation. Thank you.
Lord McNally
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is quite right: of the three parts of this initiative that attract me most, one is the idea of a proper mentoring programme; another is a real acceptance of “through the gate” as a concept of dealing with prisoners; and the other relates to how to deal with prisoners with less than one year’s sentence. This is a consultation; the actual size and shape of the geographic regions have still to be determined, and will be determined in part by the outcome of the consultation. I suspect that my right honourable friend has in mind some fairly large regions to ensure that we get the kind of benefits of scale that large regions can provide. I cannot be firmer on that but we already have some experience of commissioning in London, where a community services contract has recently been signed that is over a four-year period and £20 million less than the existing contract. I think that they will be largish regions but we are open to consultation.
What is success? This is partly a testing of the market to see what kind of organisations are interested and what problems they foresee. It is not easy; is it one year free from reoffending, is it never reoffending and how do you prove that? It is not so simple but that is part of what the consultation process is about.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the engagement of what is described in the Statement as the voluntary and community services. As the Minister knows, faith groups are already very involved in the rehabilitation of offenders, both inside and outside prison. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that, by opening up the probation services to the market, the local, voluntary and community sectors will not be eclipsed by the private sector with its much greater resources?
Lord McNally
First, I pay tribute to the right relevant Prelat for both the leadership and the contribution that the churches make to prison chaplaincies and for their support in the wider community. In previous debates I have referred to visits I have made to St Albans and Norwich, where the cathedrals are the centre of community efforts in rehabilitation. He makes a very relevant point about the voluntary sector. A new commitment within the group is that we will make available £500,000 of seed corn to help voluntary groups prepare proper business cases for participation. We will also build into the system for awarding contracts that organisations which include voluntary and local groups, and can clearly demonstrate that they are making full use of their expertise, will probably have a much better chance of winning contracts.
I hope that those two parts of the package—help in preparing a proper business case and a contractual advantage if they are included in bids by larger groupings—will ensure that local and voluntary organisations have a proper participation. Indeed, we would be disappointed if this was not one of the results of what we are doing. We want the ideas, initiatives and commitment that voluntary and local groups can bring to this as part of what we have termed a revolution.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I welcome the commitment to reducing the dreadful rate of reoffending. As an aside, I notice that the Minister did not add to his list of the factors that prevent reoffending the one that is said to mean most—a 30th birthday.
I would like to take up two points; first, the point that the Minister made at the end of the Statement—namely, that this is a very serious subject and needs a very serious debate. Will the Government be prepared to allow that debate? So far, we have not had an opportunity to debate the previous consultation which is swept up in this one. There is so much involved that it is terribly important that the issues contained in this should be properly debated in the House, whether at the end of this consultation period or not. I ask him for that.
Secondly, this business of “through the gate” and picking people up is not new. The previous Government introduced a programme called custody plus which was designed to do exactly that, but it was dropped because of fears that it would result in too many people being given short sentences which would be accompanied by this sort of follow-up. I wonder whether that same sum has been done here. The figures at present show an 8.3% success rate above the short sentence in prison rate being achieved by the probation service with short-sentence prisoners, but what we are seeing is a proposal for a complete change, not the reinforcement of success.
My second question to the Minister is this. We are dealing with offenders and offenders are dealt with by people, so offender management must be made the responsibility of someone. We have talked about responsibility for high-risk offenders and the fact that the probation service will be responsible for the initial risk assessment, but we have not had any indication of what will happen during the sentence if a medium or low-risk offender changes the level of risk. Who will be responsible for that? Will the probation service remain responsible throughout this process for the overall management of offenders on community sentences?
Lord McNally
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. I will certainly have a look at what he refers to as the “through the gate” experience and if the Minister responsible is now in this House, I might ask him or her about their experience. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that through-the-gate help and preparation before prison, along with being met at the gate and helped afterwards, has an impact.
The probation service will continue to have oversight across the piece. Part of the consultation will be about how light-touch that will be in terms of the day-to-day management of offenders, but we are conscious of the evidence that risk can change during the process of supervision and that there may well be a need to move certain individuals from the areas being managed by the private and voluntary sectors back into the public sector. However, that will be built into the oversight provisions that are to be part of the outcome of these consultations.
On the question of a debate, it is a matter for the usual channels, but if the Government prove difficult to persuade, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dholakia will be able to persuade the Liberal Democrats to give one of their debate days to such a discussion. One way or another, we will have a debate in this House on this matter.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, we have yet to hear from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Faulks
I welcome this Statement, particularly its focus on those with sentences of less than 12 months and its identification of that period of vulnerability as young offenders leave prison. One of the particular areas of vulnerability is those offenders who have a previous history of drug addiction who are then prone to taking large doses of drugs which can result in death. I therefore welcome the role of a mentor, although I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said about the perception of custody plus because I was sitting as a recorder at the time. However, the role of a mentor seems to me to be potentially very important. Can the Minister help the House by identifying who exactly is going to perform this mentoring role and what its scope might be so as to assist in avoiding those traps that I have attempted to identify?
Lord McNally
My Lords, as part of the consultation, we will be looking at the structure of mentoring. However, in the specific terms that my noble friend has referred to—in relation to those who leave prison with problems still associated with drug addiction—one thing we are trying to do, with the co-operation of the health service, is to make sure that people who are on programmes in prison continue to receive those programmes when they leave. One of the barmier aspects of the current system is that people who have been on treatment leave prison and, surprise, surprise, their addiction returns. Part of the programme of release will be to continue programmes like that.
As for mentoring, we will just have to wait to see the response, what kind of organisations come forward with suggestions, and where we build into any mentoring programme the proper training that will enable mentors to be effective in their work.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, given that we are in nearly the third year of this Government and still have no published strategy for women offenders and those at risk of offending, I ask the Minister a short question and hope that his answer will be both short and positive. Will he confirm that the current network of women’s centres, which have done such splendid work in turning women’s lives around and which have spectacular results in reducing reoffending as well as working well with probation trusts, will be an acknowledged part of the new system which he is describing today?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, in relation to the question of the right reverend Prelate and also regarding mentors, will the Minister recognise the concern about the continuity of care for these people, and consider whether in his consultation there might be preferred providers? For instance, if a small voluntary body proves to have a good track record, they would not have to renegotiate after three years and spend a lot of money and time to keep that ability. The mentors that they develop would also be kept on and not left in suspense as to whether their contract will be renewed in a year or so. Certainly, in my experience, good mentors can be undermined by the lack of certainty about their future and the future contract for their organisation.
Lord McNally
I take that very wise advice and will do my best to ensure that there is continuity.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance to the House that in the consultation—for which we are all very grateful—the Government will be open-minded about the issue of the private sector, and the notion that it is appropriate that this extremely difficult task be dealt with by competition and the profit motive? Are the Government open-minded to the prospect that after the consultation this be omitted from the new scheme?
Lord McNally
That is always a possibility. In a way, we are all on payment by results, even Ministers—fortunately, we have to wait until 2015. Obviously, we are bringing forward a programme which builds on initiatives from the last Government and which suggests that some kind of payment-by-results incentive programme encourages efficiency and innovation. We do not bring forward proposals with the anticipation that they are either going to be rejected or are going to fail. I hope that they will bring forward really constructive responses. There has been a good and constructive response from the Opposition today. I am sorry that we squeezed out the noble Lord, Lord Myners, because I am delighted that he is the new chairman of the Howard League and I look forward to working with him on this and other areas. As always, almost by default as a Liberal Democrat, I enter this period of consultation with optimism.
Procedure of the House
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 81) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, it may be helpful if I say a word about the structure of the debate. When I finish my opening speech, the Question will be put on my Motion for the first time and then the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, will be called to speak to his amendment. At the end of his speech, the Question is put on his amendment for the first time, at which point it would be appropriate for all the other amendments to be debated as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Lea. At the end of the debate, I shall respond to the whole debate and then the noble Lord, Lord Lea, will reply and decide what to do with his amendment. Each of the other amendments will then be called in turn and can be moved formally, to enable your Lordships to decide on any of them, should any of their proponents so wish. After all the amendments have been disposed of, the Question is then put on my Motion, or my Motion as amended. I trust that that is clear.
The report covers various matters but given that five amendments have been tabled to the committee’s recommendation on the tabling of Oral Questions, I hope the House will forgive me if I focus on this point and set out the reasoning behind the committee’s recommendations in some detail.
It may help the House if I explain how we have got to this position. Last October, at the request of the committee, the Clerk of the Parliaments brought forward a paper covering a wide range of issues around Oral Questions, Topical Questions and Private Notice Questions. The paper touched on the option of moving to a ballot for Oral Questions, and the committee unanimously supported the principle of a ballot. At the same time, the Clerk of the Parliaments was asked to prepare a further paper setting out in greater detail how a ballot might work. The committee considered this second paper in December. At that meeting, two members of the committee, quite justifiably and rightly, asked that their reservations about the detailed implementation of the proposal be minuted, but there was no challenge to the principle of a ballot. So the committee has had two full discussions on these issues, during both of which there was unanimous support for the principle of a ballot.
So why a ballot? We all know that the House is too big. However, the size is compounded by the fact that the House—or rather individual Members—are much busier once they get here. That generally must be welcomed, but it causes some problems. A House that numbered well over 1,000 in the 1990s did not cause any difficulty because the rate of attendance was so much lower. In 1990, the average daily attendance, out of a House of more than 1,200 Members, was 321; last year, out of a House of 800, it was 490.
We also work a lot harder. In 1990, just under 1,200 Written Questions were asked, almost exactly one per Member; in 2012, the figure was approaching 7,000, or nine per member. With Oral Questions, unlike Written Questions, the number available does not increase in response to Member demand: we are limited to a maximum of four a day. In 1990 there were 577 Oral Questions; in 2012, with fewer sitting days, the number had actually fallen to 503. What has happened is that noble Lords wishing to table Oral Questions have often found themselves queueing for longer and longer outside the Table Office. I am told that recently one noble Lord sat in the corridor outside the Table Office for no less than three hours in order to secure an Oral Question. On most days one or more Members queue for more than an hour. It is not surprising, therefore, that a number of complaints have been made to me and my predecessor as Chairman of Committees. The truth is that the current system favours those who do not have outside jobs or other commitments, who live in London, are here every day and are sufficiently determined, as well as physically robust enough, to spend their lunch hour sitting on a not very comfortable chair in the corridor.
The facts tell their own story. If we discount balloted Topical Questions, 410 Oral Questions were tabled in 2012. Of these, no fewer than 111—or 27%—were tabled by just 15 Members of the House. Those Members each tabled between six and 10 Oral Questions—10 being, in effect, the maximum, given that Members are allowed to have only one Oral Question in House of Lords business at any one time. On the other hand, Members with outside employment or other commitments, including the Lords Spiritual, have found it difficult—sometimes impossible—to table two Oral Questions. Just two Oral Questions were tabled by Lords Spiritual in 2012, both by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield.
The committee feels that the time has come to try—I emphasise “to try”—a different approach: a daily ballot for Oral Questions. Instead of being required to queue for a two o’clock start time, Members would have a six-hour window, from 10 till four, in which to enter Questions in the ballot. We hope that this will encourage diversity, increase the number of new voices at Question Time and encourage noble Lords with outside commitments, who cannot afford to spend an hour or more queueing four weeks ahead of time, to table Oral Questions.
Ballots are familiar in both Houses. They are used in the Commons for allocating Oral Questions and at this end they have been used for decades to allocate Back-Bench Thursday debates. We also have a ballot for topical Oral Questions. Ballots work well and are fair to all. I accept that a ballot for Oral Questions raises slightly different issues and I am conscious, as I have indicated, that some members of the Procedure Committee, while supporting the principle, have expressed reservations about the detailed working of the proposed new system. However, I emphasise that we are proposing a trial, and only a trial. The report proposes that this trial should start on 8 January—indeed, it should have started on 8 January, but time has moved on. So if the report is agreed, I propose that the trial should begin with the submission of Questions from Monday 14 January and run until the Summer Recess. That will give all noble Lords ample opportunity to try out the new system, to make their views known, and for any wrinkles to be ironed out.
Let me make it absolutely clear: if the ballot is unpopular, if it turns out to be a failure, or if it leads to abuse, then we will revert to the current system with effect from the autumn. The ballot will not become permanent unless the House agrees a further recommendation from the Procedure Committee to that effect. There is a guarantee on the process.
I sense that there is dissatisfaction across the House with elements of our working practices, particularly given the increase in numbers since 2010. Our Code of Conduct states that Members of the House are not full-time professional politicians and that we,
“draw substantially on experience and expertise gained outside Parliament”.
We should encourage new and fresh voices to contribute to Question Time. This report is a small step in that direction.
Before concluding, I will touch on the five amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, whom, in passing, I congratulate on securing the first Oral Question on today’s Order Paper, proposed that the first Oral Question on any given day should continue to be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis but the remainder allocated by ballot. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, wishes to increase that to the first two such Questions. I cannot support either amendment on two grounds. First, they would mean that the four Oral Questions on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday were tabled by three different methods and I fear that that would produce confusion. Secondly, if we have Members queuing for up to three hours when three or four Questions are available, how long will they have to queue if there are only one or two Questions available? I cannot support these amendments.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is more straightforward. It would delete the relevant recommendation from the report, thereby leaving the system of allocating Oral Questions unchanged. I accept that not all noble Lords welcome the change we are proposing. Not surprisingly, some of those who have made their opposition clearest, including some noble Lords who have tabled amendments today, are those who thrive under the current arrangements—those here every day and willing and able to queue on a regular basis. If the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, presses his amendment, the House will have a straight choice. I have tried to explain why I personally support the recommendation and believe it will help encourage diversity and allow us to hear from a wider range of voices during Question Time. Because of this, I will not support the noble Lord’s amendment but of course that is a decision for the House.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, would have the same effect as that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but add an instruction to the committee to reconsider and report again on the procedure for tabling Oral Questions before Easter. As I said in my opening remarks, the committee has twice discussed this issue in the past six months. Both times, the committee unanimously supported the principle of these proposals, although in December two Members expressed reservations about the detailed working. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, seeks to be helpful in trying to find a way through the difficulty but I do not see much benefit at this stage in instructing the committee to look again at the issue. In order to justify taking it back, it would be necessary for the House to give some fairly clear indication of the direction in which it wants the new proposals to be developed. We have made a recommendation for a trial period to be followed by a review. Surely that is the time to reconsider the issues. If noble Lords are adamant on a matter on principle that they oppose a ballot, the sensible thing is to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. A vote for his amendment will at least give us a clear decision, one way or another, so that we can then move on knowing the view of the House.
Finally, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would instruct the committee to consider increasing the time allowed for Oral Questions from 30 to 40 minutes and increasing the number of Questions from four to five. The House experimented with five Oral Questions lasting 40 minutes in 2002—that is but yesterday in House of Lords terms. The experiment was not felt to be a success and was discontinued in 2004. I recognise that things have changed since 2002 and 2004. There now might well be an appetite for a longer Question Time and more Questions. I am quite prepared and happy to take on board that suggestion and make sure that the Procedure Committee discusses that at its next meeting. That does not require the moving of a specific amendment: we will go back and look at it.
There is more to the report than Oral Questions, but they have generated the most interest in the report, which is why I have confined my remarks to this one issue; I have not mentioned collects or Prayers. I heartily commend the report to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lea of Crondall
At end to insert “except that on any day on which oral questions are asked the first such question shall be allocated according to the procedure currently in place”.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his report. My remarks are addressed to the written report before us, which is astonishingly short; indeed, I submit that it is inadequate. It is ostensibly a report to the hugely experienced Members of this House, but actually it does not appear to be addressed to the House for discussion; it seems almost to inform us of a decision which they would wish us to take or leave. That is in sharp contrast to the careful exposition that other committees take care to engage in when presenting reports to the House. We have two sentences on this matter. I wonder whether the procedures of the Procedure Committee need to be looked at side by side with the procedures for tabling Oral Questions.
Leaving aside the culture of the Procedure Committee and its transparency, or lack of it, if the six-month trial period survives this afternoon’s debate and votes, there will at least be an opportunity with my amendment, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to have some retention of the first-come-first-served principle, the merits of which I will touch on in a moment. Indeed, it would have the advantage of the Procedure Committee being able in this six-month period to see the two systems side by side and asses their merits and demerits.
I am not arguing that the three points in paragraph 1 are not perfectly arguable, but so are three or more points on the other side of the equation. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees says that this has all been presented to the House before. That may be but we are not psychic and it is not easy, unless these points are consolidated, to know what the rationale is for some of the things that are proposed. It is certainly not clear in this report.
On the rationale for my own amendment, I will obviously be influenced by speeches from around the House in the next hour or so before deciding whether to request that the House divide. No one knows at this point how much support there will be for other propositions, including the general reference back of my noble friend Lord Grenfell, which has just come on to the Order Paper. However, I hope that if it does come to that, colleagues will think about the advantages of voting for my amendment. If it is carried, at least there will be a chance of this element in the mix being considered. Those wanting to support the general reference back will at least have some engagement with the various alternatives, even if the general reference back is lost and other amendments are carried.
Another feature of the report is that some of the reasons given have the strange quality of a throwaway line to them. I refer, for example, to the first sentence in paragraph 2 about queuing. Of course we do not form a queue in the usual sense, snaking out across the Palace of Westminster on to Westminster Bridge. People cannot be long in this House before they know the score. There are three seats outside the door of the Minute Room and you are out of luck if all three seats are occupied. The worst that can happen is that you must come back a little earlier the next day. As soon as you go to the Minute Room and find all three seats occupied, that is it, you have not been successful. If you are successful, you sit down for three hours in a corridor. It has the same central heating system as the rest of this building and you can catch up on your e-mails, read the Financial Times, catch up on Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or read the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, which on occasion I find even more contradictory than my own.
The second point relates to Members finding it difficult to come to the Palace at lunchtime, but that is already what we do on Thursdays or Fridays, including those people with outside jobs. As a matter of fact, I think that most of us now are working Peers and it is a strange argument that the tail of people with interests in the City is going to wag this dog.
On this question of the balance of convenience for Members, one might add that there will be frustrations with the new system, which could potentially be far more frustrating than the present system. One such frustration will obviously be that day after day after day you can fail to win a place in the ballot. It follows, as night follows day, that you have no way of ever being able to put down a particular Question on a day chosen in advance. This is one of the great strengths of the current procedure. Those colleagues who have been in the House of Commons can all see that this is a unique feature of the House of Lords—that you can put down a particular Question in advance, even two months ahead. You can tell people that you will table a Question on women’s rights, for example, on 1 May or whatever day is appropriate, and you can guarantee that you will do that. I do not know why that point has been presented so ambiguously.
The lucky dip system is intended, I trust, to ensure that no one should have any anxieties about the merits of the content of a Question being scrutinised. But surely the criterion should be, to use an American expression, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The only things that seem to be broken at the moment are the present procedures of the Procedure Committee. There has been no Green Paper or feedback from Members about this that I recall; it is all coming from within the arcane world of the Procedure Committee. I find the details of how it works quite obscure.
Let me finally—
Lord Lea of Crondall
This is less than 10 minutes to introduce an amendment, which is quite in order. I am on my last point, if Members would be courteous enough to shut up for a minute and let me make my point.
Finally, let me give a defence of even a partial retention of the current system. People in the rest of the country looking at our agendas can know well in advance that something will be coming up. It would have been very much to the credit of the Procedure Committee if it had recognised in terms in its report that there is no perfect system in the sense of fulfilling all conceivable objectives. But it is surely axiomatic that we need a careful analysis of the pros and cons of each system, and one would expect that from a senior committee of this House. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, the purpose of my amendment is to have two Questions balloted and two as tabled at the moment—and, frankly, the chair is perfectly comfortable. The purpose of Questions is for the Back Benchers in your Lordships’ House to try to bring the Government of the day to account. To do that, they need to think a little bit and plan ahead, as my noble friend opposite said. I shall give two examples. I have asked a number of Questions on the pirates in Somalia, and slowly but successfully the policy has changed. It is my belief that not just my contribution but those from all over the House, not least from the noble Lord, Lord West, and others, who have detailed experience, have put pressure on the Government to change our policy. Secondly, I started a hare running just before Christmas on the National Lottery and the challenge that it faces from the Health Lottery. It would be my intention to table a further Question to see what progress has been made in three or four months’ time, but if it is done on a ballot there is absolutely no hope of that happening.
I do not live in London; I live 50 miles out of London, and I commute. If I can make the effort on one day a month—and that is all we are talking about—to get here at an earlier hour than two o’clock, I do not think that that is asking too much of anyone. I recognise that my noble friends from all over the House who come from Scotland and the north of England face a huge problem on a Monday, so a second balloted Question on that sort of day is entirely appropriate. I recognise that other noble Lords, also from Scotland—when I look around the Chamber I see that there are a number here—understandably leave on a Wednesday night if there is minor business on a Thursday, so a second balloted Question would be entirely appropriate there.
Therefore, my amendment offers some equality on both sides. I do not have any concern for those who have outside interests. I have some outside interests and, at some times of the year, they are very exacting. Again, though, all I have to do is organise my diary for one day to get here. If I am unlucky that day, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, says, I will look at who was there and what time I guess they got there and be a little more astute the next day, or the day after. That is what we are here for. We are here to question the Executive and service the nation. We are not here to accommodate people’s outside interests and whether or not they think that they can get here
I also say to the Chairman of Committees that there should be no way at all that any party other than a Member can table a Question—no researchers of any sort, approved or otherwise. It has to be the individual Member who makes the effort and produces a Question that makes the Minister of the day think and thereby enhances our nation and this Parliament.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I rise now because I was particularly taken by the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about who else can table Questions. The reality is that, although a great deal of effort has obviously gone into this paper from the Procedure Committee, it is extremely obscure as to how the system would operate.
I have no brief either way on whether we should go down the road of balloting or not balloting. I would simply like to understand the rules. I rather thought that when proposals were brought before this House it would be clear how they would work. Under paragraph 3 we have a series of bullet points that set out how this system is supposed to work. The first tells us that there would continue to be four weeks’ notice. Did the Procedure Committee not wonder whether four weeks’ notice was necessary? At present, when you table a Written Question, the expectation is that you will get an answer within two weeks, so why is four weeks being retained?
The second bullet point is more substantive. It says:
“Members will be able to submit an oral question to the Table Office, in person or by telephone”.
I am not, personally, a good mimic, but I have a number of colleagues who are. How do we—and the Table Office and the clerks there—know who they are speaking to? I appreciate that arrangements are in place which permit this to happen, but when we talk about what could be quite a controversial process in the future, I wonder whether this is something that should be examined.
However, it does not stop there. The report goes on to say:
“Questions will not be accepted by post, email, fax, or via third parties such as researchers, unless the text is also confirmed by the member in person or by telephone”.
This raises several questions. When will the Member be asked to confirm it—after they have been successful in the ballot or before the Question goes into the ballot? If it is after the ballot has been concluded, then you would get a phone call from the clerks telling you, “You have been successful in the ballot”. “Oh”, you reply, “I didn’t know I had put one in—oh yes, that’s fine. Thank you very much indeed. I am delighted”. Again, this raises some serious issues. I hope that the Procedure Committee will look at that issue again, as to what in fact that sentence is intended to mean.
The next bullet point is the clearest of all of them. However, we then go on to read:
“As is already the case for balloted topical questions, no more than one question on a subject will be accepted for inclusion in the ballot”.
Let us assume that 40 Questions arrive. The clerks are organising this ballot, and they have to go through them and decide whether any are on the same subject. How will they decide this? Suppose that I tabled a Question on cycling lanes in London—although it is unlikely—and my noble friend Lord Berkeley had tabled a Question on Crossrail in London, and another noble Lord had tabled a Question on airports on London. They are all about transport in London. Is this then about one subject or three? Somebody over there says “three”. However, on a good day, we can have a Question about cycling in London and some of the more ingenious Members of your Lordships’ House would manage to get on to the subject of airports without any difficulty at all.
Let us say, therefore, that it is one topic. However, is it one topic or two, if one Question is about cycle lanes in London, and another is about whether or not you can take bicycles on commuter trains in London? They are, in fact, two very different topics. Are they one Question or two? How will those decisions be made, who will make them, and who is accountable for making them? If these decisions are inherently difficult to make, why do we say that they should be made before inclusion in the ballot rather than after it? I understand that if three or four Questions emerge which are on very similar subjects there might be some negotiation, but why bother doing that in advance of having the ballot itself?
Members will not be able to roll Questions over—I can see the point of that. However, in the final bullet point you have:
“If, by 4 pm, fewer questions have been submitted than there are slots available, from that point the remaining slots will be allocated … on a first-come-first-served basis”—
even if they are on the same topic. So I am not successful in getting my Question down on bicycling in London because a cycling Question has already been put down, but because not all the Questions have been tabled that day it is possible to put one down about another aspect of cycling.
The point I am trying to make is that this is very unclearly drafted and that there will be all sorts of problems and complications. I hope that before we start an experiment we have some clarity as to how it is intended to work.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment in my name. I am disappointed in the Procedure Committee’s report. I thought long and hard about it, the issues raised and what Questions are for. Ever since I came into your Lordships’ House two and a half years ago, on most occasions I have had to queue to table Questions. That is a symptom of the House having expanded and the number of Members wishing to table Questions having increased. I am disappointed that the Procedure Committee’s report has not looked for a cure to that problem.
The Companion to the Standing Orders is quite clear. It states that the purpose of Questions is to,
“elicit information from the government of the day, and thus to assist members of both Houses in holding the government to account”.
In recent times, we have on many occasions discussed the role of this House in advising the Government, scrutinising their actions, challenging them, approving or rejecting Motions in respect of delegated legislation and participating in the legislative process. I fail to see how introducing a ballot for every Question enhances our ability to fulfil our role as a second Chamber in this respect. If the problem is the pressure on people wanting to ask Oral Questions, that is what needs to be addressed. This report does not do that. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley tries to address that issue.
There could be other ways to deal with the pressure for Members to ask Questions of the Government. Perhaps we should seek to do something that is a bit different or radical. One thing I have thought of is having themed Question sessions in the Moses Room on a particular subject for an hour a week whereby Members could table a Question and ask a supplementary question. It would not ping-pong round the House and in that way we would get 20 Questions on a particular subject answered each week with no problem at all. That is one idea only, but one that attempts to deal with the pressure on Question slots which the Procedure Committee’s report fails to address. If we approve the report in its present format, we are just shuffling the chairs, the pressure will not have gone away and noble Lords will not be satisfied with the situation in which we find ourselves. We will be no further forward.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I wish to explain very briefly why I have tabled my amendment. Many years ago, a young Italian opera singer made his debut at the Naples opera house. At the end of his first aria there was very loud applause and shouts for an encore, which he obliged. After his second rendition there was even louder applause and even more cries for an encore. However, seeing the conductor shaking his head, the young opera singer stepped forward and said to the audience, “Thank you very much indeed but I think that we must now get on with the opera”, at which there came a loud shout from the gods, “You don’t understand us; we want you to go on until you get it right”.
I have not so far had the pleasure of hearing the Lord Chairman of Committees in full operatic flow and I certainly left the Procedure Committee far too long ago to recall whether we closed our meetings with a live version of the “Toreador Song” or anything like that. However, we have to get this matter right. Oral Questions are the oxygen that enables the Back Benches to participate in the day-to-day business of holding the Government to account. I do not think that at present we have a perfect system. The discussion we have had so far this afternoon makes that perfectly clear.
The present system is not perfect in many ways. I am not going to go through that again because we have heard plenty of it already. I will mention one obvious point in relation to queuing. I always thought that the British were a nation much inclined to queuing and regarded it as an honourable tradition; I was a wartime baby. I spend much of my time in a country where queuing is regarded as an assault on the Darwinian principle, and it may be that I have not kept up with changing sentiments. However, I sense that the House is uneasy, to say the least, with this report and about the proposals that have emerged from the Procedure Committee, and that unease has been apparent in the discussions this afternoon. Can the Lord Chairman tell us whether any of that unease was apparent within the committee itself?
The Lord Chairman has reminded the House that all that is being sought is a trial run of these proposals up to the Summer Recess. I am not against trial runs, but it depends on how credible and potentially acceptable the process being tested is. If, at the end of a trial run based on the proposals before us, the House is minded to find them not fit for purpose—which I feel is quite a strong likelihood—then I would rate rather high the chances of further consideration being consigned to the long grass for a very long time, if not forever.
Would it not be better for the Procedure Committee, between now and Easter, to have one more try, aided by wider consultation within the House, at finding a more acceptable process for tabling Oral Questions than the one that has been put before us today? This could then form the basis for a trial run with a stronger prospect of acceptance by the House and, above all, by the Back Benches.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I congratulate the Chairman of Committees. Although I do not necessarily agree with what is in the report, I think he presented it very clearly. As other noble Lords have said, it is for a trial period and we will hold the committee to that. My worry is that, as the noble Lords, Lord Naseby, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Grenfell, have said, the purpose of these Questions is to hold the Government to account. We need the certainty of timing of the Question as part of that process; other noble Lords have given examples. If an event is coming that one knows could be a problem for the Government, it is nice to have a Question on that day.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, it is my understanding that the Chairman of Committees was prepared to accept the noble Lord’s request and has said that there was no need for an amendment. Unless the noble Lord wishes to proceed with it, would he accept what the Chairman of Committees has said?
Lord Berkeley
With respect to the noble Countess, I was not sure whether it was in the Chairman’s gift to accept it or whether it was for the Committee. May I carry on for a little bit longer and then we can debate that?
Timing is very important. We started this debate an hour later than most of us thought would happen and we have had to spend an hour doing something else. We are all good at time management. Queuing in a nice soft chair once a month is not a big problem compared with the time management of all the other things happening in here. As my noble friend Lord Harris said, balloting could be a problem. Perhaps the solution is to trial going back to five Questions a day. The Chairman of Committees said that this was tried in 2002, and I remember it well. He said it was a failure, but if there are not enough Questions to fill the five, you have four Questions and you carry on with other business.
I do not know what the statistics are for the 10 years between 2002 and now, but I suspect that it would not be difficult to fill five Questions on most days when we have Questions. That would be a reasonable way to go forward. Before making massive changes to balloting or part-balloting, let us try five Questions over 40 minutes for a period and see how Members react to it. If they have to queue for half an hour rather than an hour, so be it. I do not think it is a problem, which is why I propose this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, perhaps I may give an opposite point of view. I have been in this House since 2006 and have not yet put down an Oral Question. The main reason was that the procedure of queuing, whereby I might not get there in time and there were all these other noble Lords who wanted to table Questions, led me to the view that perhaps mine was not so important and I had better let other people table them. I would be likely to put down a Question and take my chance if there were a ballot. I am perhaps a lone voice but I support the Chairman of Committees and the Procedure Committee’s proposal.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I take the opposite view to the one just expressed by the noble and learned Baroness. The evil that the Procedure Committee is trying to redress in its proposal is that there are now too many people in this House, Question Time is more interesting than it used to be, more people want to ask Questions and there is therefore a blockage in the way in which the Questions get on to the Floor. I accept that. I do not accept that the Procedure Committee’s proposal is the right way of dealing with the problem.
There are various ways in which the problem could be dealt with. An extension of the length of Question Time is a desirable proposal that we ought to consider. The issue of whether there should be 40 minutes for five Questions or three-quarters of an hour for six is a matter of detail that we can no doubt talk about at some future date. However, the fact of the matter is that if you extend Question Time, there is an opportunity for more people to put down Questions and for more people to participate in the process of Question Time.
The disadvantages of the ballot have been expressed primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. You need a degree of certainty when it comes to Question Time. Back-Benchers need some degree of certainty that what they want to ask the Government and to hold them to account for, if Members are prepared to make the effort to put down the Question, will actually be tabled, and provide them with an opportunity to put the Question and demand an explanation from a government Minister. If you have a ballot, the chances are that that certainty will go. That will disadvantage this House and diminish the value and effectiveness of Question Time.
As my noble friend Lord Harris said, there are various uncertainties—to put it mildly—on the details of how the ballot would be conducted, which again makes me slightly dubious about it. A third alternative is that suggested by my noble friend Lord Kennedy, whereby it may be possible, using the Moses Room procedure, to have ways of questioning the Government in relation to specific ministries on specific days—ways that are not available at Question Time but that would nevertheless fulfil the responsibilities of this House in holding Ministers and the Government to account on specific matters that Members of this House think are important.
There are a number of ways in which this problem may be dealt with. My difficulty with the Procedure Committee’s report is that it has considered only one option—an option that is dignified by the name “ballot” but that is, in fact, a good old honest raffle. You dip into the hat, and with any luck your name is pulled out and you get the opportunity to ask a Question. That process in itself will diminish the way in which Questions are put in this House. On the whole, Question Time is a plus for this House. The Questions that are put down are, on the whole, relevant, and the way in which they are dealt with is, on the whole, equally relevant.
My view is that this is not the way in which we necessarily have to proceed. I do not say that it is the way in which we necessarily do not have to proceed, but before we go down this particular route, even for a limited period, there are a number of alternative ways of approaching this problem that the Procedure Committee has not considered, and which, I say with great respect, it should consider.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the first thing that has to be said is that Question Time is a very important part of the functioning of this House. It is the time on most days when the House sits when there are a lot of people here and when the House has an identity. It is full, over-full nowadays, and it is very important indeed that we do not go ahead with a pilot of more than six months that might get things wrong. Six months is a long period of time. We have to be quite sure, even for an experiment of over six months, that it is right.
The second point is that enough points have been put forward this afternoon to show that even if an experiment with a ballot is the right way forward, not enough of the detail has been worked out. There is certainly not enough consensus in the House to go ahead with this for six months.
It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness has not put forward questions, and she should do so straightaway, whatever system we have now, because they will be good questions. The problem of queuing has occurred only in the last two years or so because of the increased size of the House. It is not a problem of the system as such; it is the problem that the House is now too big for the system that we now have to work efficiently.
Thinking about the detail, one point that I picked up is the suggestion that there should be a ballot, and that if not enough questions are put forward for a ballot on a particular day, it should then be put out to first come first served. That is not a sensible system. I can see that one or two of the fanatics among the people who attend Question Time—I include myself at various times, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and others—might be hovering around every day to see whether there are enough Questions and pouncing like vultures. Then what do we do if there is only one? This does not seem to be a sensible way to go ahead. Who will know, who will be told, and how will they be told?
I was here in 2002 when the experiment took place. I think, from memory, that it was only one day a week—I think it was Wednesdays, but I am not certain about that. It was abandoned because it was felt that Question Time on that day was running out of steam and did not have the sense of people jumping up and down and trying to compete or the atmosphere of today’s Question Time because of the numbers of Members at that time. In the present circumstances, there are a lot more people at Question Time who would like to get in but are unable to. Once a person has asked the Question and someone from the opposition Front Bench, someone from the Liberal Democrats and someone from the Cross Benches has asked a question, no one else is able to get in. The way in which it has gone is unfortunate.
One advantage of going to five Questions of eight minutes is that it is easier to time them. One of the problems at the moment is that the Clock does not measure half minutes, it only measures full minutes. If all the Questions are in demand, we tend to get a Question of eight minutes and a bit more and then one of less than seven minutes, because it is coming up against 15 minutes, and another longer one of eight minutes and a bit. The last Question is very often squeezed to five or six minutes. At least if every Question ended on a full minute, it would be easier for the House to time itself by the magic of the self-regulation that takes place.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Procedure Committee that has presented this report to your Lordships, and congratulate, if I may, the Chairman of the Committees on the very thoughtful way in which he presented it. The way in which he handled this left no doubt that the committee gave a great deal of detailed thought to this matter over a number of meetings and received advice on various possibilities at each one.
It is important to recognise that the committee did not come upon this matter by chance or in any way to be mischievous. In fact, it was responding to concerns of your Lordships. It came on to the agenda because concern was expressed to the committee about how the current arrangements work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I should just like to ask the noble Lord a question. At any time during the committee’s considerations, was any thought given to consulting Members of the House before the Procedure Committee came to a conclusion?
Lord Laming
Yes, my Lords. There was consideration of consulting Members of the House. I urge your Lordships to look at the front sheet of the report and at the membership of the committee that considered this matter. Leaving me aside, if noble Lords wish, the membership represents a remarkable degree of experience in this House. The committee considered a number of issues and not only of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Therefore, this matter was taken—
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I have seen the names of the people who participated in the Procedure Committee and I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Hunt’s question can be answered. Was thought given to a survey among Members?
Lord Laming
The answer that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which I shall repeat, is that the committee considered a number of possibilities and decided that each one of them had considerable flaws and was time-consuming. The committee therefore went ahead and produced a thoughtful document, which is now before your Lordships. The reason—
Lord Naseby
The point that the noble Lord does not seem to have taken on board is: what consultation was there with Back-Benchers? Questions are put down by Back-Benchers. The vast majority of members of the Procedure Committee are not Back-Benchers and they do not put down Questions. On the whole, I question whether they really know what the procedure is and what really happens.
Lord Laming
The committee considered the representations that had been made to them by Back-Benchers and those representations fell into three clear and unambiguous categories as far as the committee was concerned. One is to simplify the procedure; the second is to recognise that not all Members are free to form a queue at two o’clock and not all Members find it a dignified process; and the third and most important point is whether it is possible to arrive at a recommendation that enables a wider range of Members to table Oral Questions.
The committee made these recommendations in the belief that it had addressed the objectives set for it. The committee not only made the recommendations on that basis but recognised that any change has its advantages and disadvantages, many of which have been aired today, and those were considered by the committee. It therefore decided that, if there is going to be a change, which is clearly a matter for the House, why not introduce it on an experimental basis, as set out in the report, so that we can all learn from experience? In the light of that experience, we can either modify what has been recommended or it can be scrapped and we can go back to what is presently in operation.
This House has demonstrated its willingness to look at its procedures. It has demonstrated through the Leader’s Group and other means that it is willing to consider changes in its procedures if it seems that they can be in keeping with the current pressures on the House. As I am sure all noble Lords will agree, it is not a dramatic change to introduce a ballot for matters of this kind. However, I urge the House to consider that, if we accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, we will end up with three different procedures to determine four Questions. I have to say that that is not a system that would appeal to me; nor do I believe that it would simplify the matter.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I must clarify what I said, which was not what the noble Lord attributed to me. A comparison could certainly be made during this six-month period but it would not be a permanent arrangement of having three different systems.
Lord Laming
It is a matter for the House. I warmly commend the report to the House and I hope the House will take it as seriously as the committee did.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
As I understand it, this is an occasion on which we can express our views on the changes suggested. I am particularly worried that the new system, as proposed, would mean us losing the opportunity of asking a well-timed Question. I do not know whether we would have to put our names down for a Question at any time, but it may not be a time when we have in mind a very relevant and important Question that needs to be answered. I do not see how you get around that. We currently have a system which allows us to do that. I would also say, with the greatest respect, that it is wrong to talk about three-hour waits. I do not put down Questions all that often but when I have done I have never waited for more than an hour. You know perfectly well that if you get there at 1.55 pm and the wait finishes at 2 pm then you have lost. We all understand that. All of us have our difficulties but there are chairs provided and if we really want to put down a very important Question then we can do it. We can do it easily and it is no real problem. It is not a three-hour wait every time you put down a Question. To say that this new system would encourage diversity is an argument I cannot follow. We have great diversity at the moment. In the Commons they deal with one subject on one day whereas we pop from one subject to another with alacrity and great ingenuity. I am extremely worried about a system which would rob us of a very good and timely ability to question the Government.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, I declare an interest. I have occasionally put down Questions. Much of what has been said I entirely agree with. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness. I have never had to wait for three hours to put down a Question and I have put down a fair number of Questions. I have also been very interested to hear that it is all a matter for Back Benchers. Perhaps my noble friends on our Front Bench would note that.
My noble friend Lord Harris made the very important point that if we were to accept this it would not be a fair trial. It is totally confusing. I congratulate the Chairman of Committees on what he said. The present situation is not ideal. There is not an ideal situation available and it is going to get worse. If the rumours I hear are correct—that the Prime Minister is going to introduce another 100 Peers because having lost Lords reform they are now going to destroy us by numbers—it will make the situation even worse and is another reason for the committee to rethink. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will have listened to what has been said today. We cannot expect an ideal solution and I do not expect the committee to come up with one. However, I do expect it to reconsider this. I hope the Chairman of Committees will think very carefully and not press this to a vote. He should take it back for reconsideration. That would be the ideal solution today and I ask him to do just that.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, if I can be forgiven for telling the House, Aneurin Bevan once said that our principles remain constant but our policies have to be reinvented with every generation because policies, like tools, get worn out with use. I want to get across the point that I am not against the idea that we should look at how we table Questions. I am just not sure that this is the right way to be going about it. The work of the House committees is so wrapped up that most of us do not know what is and is not discussed. Some very good ideas have come across the Chamber today but we do not know whether the Procedure Committee has actually considered them. The Chairman of Committees said that two reports were prepared by the Clerks on this matter. Where are they? Are they not available to Members? If we are not members of the Procedure Committee, we are not allowed to go in to listen and see what happens, so we do not quite know what has been discussed.
In my brief remarks I shall confine myself to a few questions. Paragraph 3 states:
“Members will, as at present, be able to submit oral questions four weeks before the sitting day on which they are to be asked”.
Why four weeks? Why not five weeks, or six weeks, or the first Monday after the next full moon? What is the logic about four weeks? Why can we not table Questions for next week? Has this been considered? I do not know.
Following on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris, the second bullet point in paragraph 3 states:
“Members will be able to submit an oral question to the Table Office, in person or by telephone, at any time between 10 am and 4 pm on that day. Questions will not be accepted by post, email, fax, or via third parties such as researchers, unless the text is also confirmed by the member in person or by telephone”.
So researchers can table Questions on behalf of Members—it says so here. It is quite confusing. How on earth are we going to resolve the problem if researchers and others are able to phone in or send in fax or text messages? How do you check whether or not a text message is from a Member? I know many colleagues who allow staff to access their own e-mail addresses. How will you know? This causes me some concern.
I assume the Clerks will conduct the ballot. Will we be able to observe the ballot? Will the list of the ballot be published immediately afterwards? These questions might have been considered by the Procedure Committee, but I do not know and I do not know whether other Members of the House know. This is why I am inclined to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Grenfell and say, “Go back and have another look at this”. I do not know whether the idea of themed Questions suggested by my noble friend Lord Kennedy and others, and the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, have been considered, but they are all worth considering.
Coming back to the point I made at the beginning, I am not against the change. However, I want to know how we have arrived at this position because I am somewhat doubtful that this is the right way to go about changing the procedure for submitting a Question.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, the attraction of the scheme put forward by the Chairman of Committees is that, on the one hand, it would do away with the need for queueing—on that I have nothing to say because I have never tried to put down a Question and so I have never had to queue—and, on the other hand, the balloting alternative would be fair to all Members who wished to ask a Question. It is that part of the recommendation that I have been considering while the debate has been going on.
It would be fair only if there were a strictly enforced rule that no Member could put into the ballot more than one Question at a time. If a Member drafted 10 different Questions and popped them all into the ballot box, he or she would increase by a factor of 10 his or her chance of success. You can multiply that: if you put in 100 Questions the factor would be 100. There would need to be a strictly enforced rule that only one Question per Member could be put in. How that would be done and enforced, I really do not know.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the existing system of first come, first served involves some minor inconvenience and frustration but, on the whole, it works fairly well, certainly if you judge by results. Our Question Time is, by general acceptance, a good occasion: the Government are held to account, there are lively debates and it is a collective occasion for the House as a whole. Therefore the onus is on those who want to change the present system to make the case that it is so unsatisfactory that it needs to be altered.
I am not, however, necessarily opposed to experimentation with an alternative system with a ballot, but I have some anxieties about it. One of my anxieties is that if the process of tabling a Question becomes easier and if, at the same time, the statistical odds that your Question will be successful in the ballot are remote, I fear that the quality of questioning may deteriorate—that people will not take the same trouble to formulate their Questions and we will lose the more forensic and purposeful Questions of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to. It is very important for the performance and reputation of this House that we continue to table Questions that are of genuine and broad interest to the generality of noble Lords, that open up important issues and that probe the Government. On the whole, the House at the moment does those things rather well.
Another concern I have was dealt with engagingly by my noble friend Lord Harris. How is the definition of a single subject to be arrived at and who will determine whether a subject is a single subject? I fear that, because of the uncertainty about this, noble Lords will be tempted to game the system and table Questions that are intentionally somewhat vague, highly generalised and lacking in specificity. Again, that will not be good for the House and it will make things unreasonably difficult for Ministers. We need to be sure that we have a proper solution to that issue.
My main concern is that a balloting system in which it is easy for people to put down Questions will be almost irresistibly tempting to the Whips of all the parties. I am not aware, and I have certainly not been subject to blandishments and importunings, that the Whips seek to organise and control Question Time in this House as they do in the House of Commons. That is one reason why the character of Question Time in this House is, to my taste, more satisfactory than the character of Question Time in the House of Commons. What goes on in the House of Commons suits them and is part of the daily drama of the nation, but we have a different culture and style. Personally, I think it would be better for us to continue to conduct the party politics that there inevitably will be in this House sotto voce and in a relatively restrained style, as is our custom and practice, and not seek to emulate the customs and practices of Question Time in the other place. We should be wary of anything that allows the character of Question Time here to drift away from the way it is at the moment and more towards how it is in the other place.
I favour the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Grenfell. Before this experiment is initiated, further thought ought to go into it, and I am delighted that the Chairman of Committees has spoken favourably of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Perhaps I may contribute briefly to the debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to some of us as fanatics, I would rather think of those of us who ask Questions as enthusiasts. If I had to choose one amendment, I would go for that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which retains the status quo, but I am impressed by the arguments we have heard about the different problems. One which sounds quite fair is: why on earth should Questions be tabled at 2 pm? If people really cannot get here from Scotland or wherever, they could be considered at some other time.
The question of the ballot is not at all clear. I am opposed to a ballot because it is, as has been said, a raffle or a lottery. The other difficulty with it is that when we ballot for topical questions, we are limited in how many we can ask in a year. There is no clarity as to whether, if we ballot for these Questions, we would be limited in that way. It has been said that the most Questions anyone has tabled is 10 in the past year, so that person must have been pretty conscientious. The idea that it is easy to secure a Question is quite wrong. You have to be there bright and early and you have to queue; you are making an effort and a personal sacrifice. It is better when the next two people arrive. I have found it to be one of the most wonderful places to have a cross-party conversation. When you are waiting there, you may be one of three representative groups, each asking a Question. I find that the present system is excellent.
In his very good presentation of the report, the Chairman of Committees said that we want to encourage new voices. I am all for that, but tabling a Question is only part of the process, and the opportunity to ask supplementary questions is available to any new voice who wants to join in. I know that I am at an advantage because I sit quite far forward and no one behind can disturb me if I stand up. It is a great advantage not to know if someone is trying hard behind you, but there are opportunities to join in. In fact, over the years, many of the questions I have asked have been about things that I had not thought about until I came in. You listen to the exchanges and suddenly you think, “That is something I’d be interested to know about”, and I believe that the new voices can intervene in that way, as well as queueing up for a balloted Question.
I favour the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, because this House’s one big reputation is for thinking again. There is no disgrace whatever in taking this report back for thinking again: that is in full consideration of the traditions of this House. Improvements could be made that must be fair to all Members. A six-month trial would be an appalling waste of time and would not be helpful. That is a personal view, and I know that some people are in favour of the balloted system; I am not. I am, however, in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and I hope that it will be carried by the House.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I will speak on the same theme. As a previous member of a Leader’s Group, I want first to make a plea to the Chairman of Committees, who made an excellent presentation in the circumstances. I plead with him to reflect on his decision not to call an earlier meeting of the Procedure Committee and leave it as presently scheduled. We should have an earlier meeting, and he should reflect on that.
Secondly, through the noble Lord, I would like to make an appeal to the new Leader of the House, too, to take into account what has been said today and to have the guts to take it away, to have a look at it, and see if we cannot come back and get the whole House moving together as one. Thirdly, I appeal to those Peers who are perhaps inclined just to vote with the report to see that there have been a number of points made today that really need further examination.
It also reflects to a degree some of the frustrations in the House about the slow progress in implementation of a fair number of the recommendations in the previous Leader’s report. I was one of those who argued for a Leader’s report and for changes in the way that we run Questions. Under the previous Government, we experimented with Questions on particular subjects. That has now gone; it has just been ditched. Previously, we had recommendations that the Leader of the House should present himself, maybe once a week, to answer Questions. That, again, was in the evidence that went to the previous Leader’s Group and nothing has happened on it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said, while the committee has given a good deal of attention to the subject already, there are two or three other topics related to it, both directly and indirectly, that need to be brought together and examined in one go. We can then come up with something that will be acceptable to the House overall. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for a reference back to the committee and for a fairly early response to the House in the spring.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, having listened to and participated in Questions in the other House for almost a quarter of a century, please allow me to inform your Lordships that Question Time in this House is more interesting, more varied, usually more relevant, certainly much more of a discourse, and provides more information than what so often turns into a tennis match in the other House, with most Members cheering either one side or the other. The most disconcerting thing that I found on coming to this Chamber was that people actually listen to what one says. If they miss it, they read it in Hansard. This diminishes the rhetoric and contributes much more to the discussion.
My only advice is to be very careful before proceeding to a ballot. Inevitably, it would enhance the partisan nature, and the Whips, being Whips—like the scorpion, it is what they do—would circulate Questions. There would therefore not be the fairness expected, because there would be pro forma circulated Questions that 40 people, rather than one, would be asking. It would be less informative and a backward step for this House. The discourse here is one of the advantages that we have over the other House.
I have one other comment on one of the points made. The idea that queueing is somehow undignified is an intriguing and novel suggestion. I wonder if there is a committee that will consider our voting in light of this new animosity towards queueing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I have a very brief question. I have sat through the whole of this debate and must say that, except for one contribution, there has been no support at all for the committee. Given the absence of support, I would like to know exactly how many people made representations to the committee and how many of them did it in writing.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I thank the committee for at least trying to address some of the issues that some of us have over this. I am a relatively new Member—although if the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is correct, I may very well soon be able to describe myself as a veteran Member. The Chairman of Committees raised a point about distance. Whether people perhaps realise it or not, the House is very London-centric. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was able to say that he is 50 miles away but, as far as I am concerned, that is down the road. It takes me at least four hours door to door, plus the time before that to get up and so on. On a Monday, I find it extremely helpful to have a morning at home when I can work. That means that it is virtually impossible for me, without a lot of effort, to put a Question down then. However, I have tabled some Oral Questions and do not have an antipathy to queuing, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has said.
We have heard several Members here today say that they have not put Questions down because they do not particularly like the system. Those who said it are noble Lords of very great standing in your Lordships’ House, and I personally would like to see Questions coming from them. One statistic that the Chairman of Committees gave us was that a significant number of the Questions were asked by a very small number of noble Lords. Enthusiasm is a great thing but, whether we like it or not, the risk highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Reid—of the Whips becoming involved in the Questions—has to be offset against not many people having a kind of a cartel that corners the Oral Question market. It is a question of getting a balance between those different things, and the committee has tried.
There are many more experienced Members here than me and I do not want to do anything that would make government less accountable. Question Time is one of the very good things in this House, but the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is one that should be revisited. All the suggestions—such as that the Leader of the House should answer Questions, whether that is here or in a committee—are perfectly valid, and there is a whole range of things that we could look at. However, what we have now is not the perfect solution and it may not even be the best. One has to take account of why so many Members are prepared to participate in debates and become involved in legislation, and yet suddenly there is a very significant number who do not participate in Oral Questions. There is a whole reservoir of skill and ability out there that clearly does not seem to be content with the system. I presume that that is one of the reasons why the committee took the decisions and made the recommendations that it did.
We are making a bit too much heavy weather about a ballot. We already run ballots in this place. The other place and the devolved Administrations run ballots. Indeed, I spent quite a number of years, as have other noble Lords, answering and writing questions on the basis of ballots. It is not impossible to find a mechanism that will work. It is important that there is a consensus on the value and importance of the questioning process, but there appears to be a reticence among those who have participated in this debate to consent to the proposal of a trial. If we are going to change the system, it will inevitably have to be trialled—you would run a trial to iron out the gremlins. I thank the committee for making the attempt to take account of the concerns of some of us who travel from a distance.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I will speak just for a moment from the point of view of a Back-Bencher on the Cross Benches without political commitment. Many noble Lords in my position—other colleagues, although perhaps not all—believe that the best way that we can serve the House is to have a specialist interest which we take a deep concern in and spend a great deal of time studying and following. Mine happens to be disadvantaged children and parenting, but there are others. If I come across a situation in which I believe a Question needs to be asked of the Government, all I have to do is give up my lunch, go in an hour earlier and I will be at the front of the queue. If we had a system of ballots there would just be a pot of Questions there and people would put down a Question on the odd chance of it coming through. The value of the Questions would not be so good because they would not be pressed by the deep interest and commitment of the noble Lords asking them. I would plead for a continuation, if necessary, of queuing, but not for a ballot.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that the House will be anxious to come to a conclusion. This is of course a matter for the whole House and not for the Opposition or the Government. I have attended Oral Questions regularly for 15 years now and I echo the point raised by my noble friend Lord Reid—that the quality of Question Time at the moment is of a very high order. It is the focal point of our day: Ministers are held to account, the House is full and Members are attentive. I believe that one should be very wary of changing a part of our daily life that is so successful. I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees—having heard the debate today and that there is some disquiet, to say the least, about this change—would agree for his committee to be asked to give further consideration to this matter.
I carefully intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Laming, whom I respect enormously, on the question of whether this has been subject to a consultation with Members of the House. I think his answer was that the members of the committee are broadly representative of the House. However, given today’s debate, surely it would be entirely appropriate for the committee not only to set out its proposals but to pick up some of the very useful suggestions that noble Lords have made about how Question Time could be enhanced in the future and to engage in a proper consultation with Members of the House. At the end of that process the committee would be well able to reach conclusions, come back to the House with suggestions and arrange for a trial period. We would then see that this process has had the ownership of all Members of the House. I am very wary of a situation where a major change is made to the way we are allowed to table Questions but which clearly does not have ownership among a significant number of Members of the House. On that basis, it would surely be appropriate for the committee to be asked to think again.
The current quality of Questions is particularly high. Looking through the list of Questions, one sees that they are almost all of a very high order and on key issues of the day. As a number of noble Lords—such as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Knight—have suggested, there is a clear pathway to asking Questions on a certain day. On International Women’s Day, World AIDS Day or similar occasions, it is entirely possible for there to be a Question that was put down four weeks before. We will lose any way of doing that in the future. Choosing Questions out of a hat is no guarantee that we will have high-quality Questions and the House may well end up debating second-order issues of little interest to members of the public or your Lordships’ House. I will not go through all the questions that have been raised about the practicalities of balloting but will just make three points.
First, it is not at all clear why research assistants should have any role to play in this matter—I see the shaking of heads. However, it is clearly set out that Questions will be accepted from researchers if the text is also confirmed by the Member in person or by telephone. Why does a research assistant have anything to do with this at all? My understanding is that in December, when the committee discussed this matter, it was stated clearly that Questions would not be accepted from third parties.
The second area, which my noble friend Lord Harris raised, is that of no more than one Question on a subject being accepted for inclusion in the ballot. This follows the current practice for topical Questions. However, the topical Question is different: a bar is set that it has to be topical. We are talking here about all Questions being subject to this test, presumably set by officials in the Table Office, as to whether the Question is a general one which can be accepted—
Lord Barnett
Has my noble friend also thought about the problems this would give the clerks, who would have to choose? I assume that the clerks have other work to do; this complex arrangement would give them rather a lot more work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
More than that, I suspect that it would involve the clerks in judgments which might lead to questions about the way in which they conduct themselves. It would be very unfortunate. We uphold and admire the clerks and I do not think that they should be asked to make those kinds of judgments.
As for queuing, my noble friend Lord Barnett kindly mentioned to the House that I am occasionally able to have a Question on the Order Paper. It is true that I do not mind queuing: I do not understand what the problem is with it. It is a bit much for some of the distinguished Members who have spoken today to say that they do not feel able to put a Question down. I have queued, and I have recently had some very enjoyable conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is not a three-hour queue; very often it can be half an hour. Frankly, those of us who put Questions down accept the system and it is not a problem. It seems that a few people have complained and that the Procedure Committee has suddenly said, “This is a major problem which concerns many Members of the House”. That is not the case.
However, the most substantive point to be made to the Chairman of Committees, whom we all respect and admire, is that there is not a consensus view in your Lordships’ House. To change Questions—the most important focal point of our daily activity—without consensus, seems to me to be an unfortunate way to go about things. I hope that the noble Lord, with all his wisdom and experience, will agree to take this matter back.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, it is customary on occasions like this to say what a good debate it has been. I would like to say what a supportive debate it has been, but that would be somewhat inaccurate. It is clear that there are deeply held and different views on how we should go forward with Question Time. I detect a common view that something needs to be done; that is generally recognised throughout the House. The proposals before the House today were produced by the Procedure Committee in a context not of a sustained campaign from anyone to complain about or change Question Time; it was just a drip, drip, drip of comments made that the whole conduct of Question Time was a matter for complaint. When I have held my fortnightly drop-in sessions, every week someone mentioned something wrong with Question Time. It is not the great, wonderful occasion that we like to think it is. Many Members feel that they are excluded from taking part in Question Time because of the way in which it proceeds, and that is a pity.
I shall get one thing out of the way straight away. First, I assure noble Lords that the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to extend the number of Questions and lengthen Question Time will be addressed by the Procedure Committee within the next one or two meetings, so there is no need to progress that at this stage.
Secondly, a lot has been said about the consultation. That is something that I take very seriously. It is very important that a gap does not develop between Members, particularly Back-Bench Members, and the domestic committees of this House, and I have tried my best to narrow that gap. I have not completely succeeded in closing it, but I hope that it has been narrowed to an extent. In passing, it should be said that no one has come to me to complain about the proposals in the Procedure Committee report, but never mind; let it be.
However, on the issue of Question Time, when I went round to the three party groups and the Cross-Bench groups, I mentioned four topics for consideration in the near future. One of those was Question Time. So it was flagged up to all Members—if they attend their various group meetings—that this subject would be given consideration.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the Lord Chairman; I promise that this will be the only time. I recall that, because I chaired a meeting where one of the party groups was addressed. There are lots of issues about Question Time. The biggest one, which has been referred to several times in passing, is about the slight “bear garden” tendency, where strategic deafness and sitting in the second row is often a very good tactic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has told us. However, if I recall correctly, when the noble Lord raised the matter of Question Time, it was not about the tabling of Questions; there were other issues about which some Members, quite rightly, feel uneasy.
The Chairman of Committees
I cannot remember word for word what I said, but I think that I flagged up the issue of queuing as something that ought to be considered. The committee recognised that, if we make this change from a queuing system to a ballot system, there will be matters of detail that will most likely be difficult to identify initially. There may well be unintended consequences and there is the possibility, as a number of contributors have mentioned, that the system will be abused. If that happens, we have the opportunity to identify it during the trial period and either modify what is taking place or completely abandon it.
Lord Barnett
On the question of a trial, when I spoke recently about the trial run for access to the House by Members, I was told that it was only a trial. Now we have got it permanently and those of us who have to come by car or taxi will know that the trial and the continuation of it have not been very good.
The Chairman of Committees
I said in my opening comments that I give an assurance that the trial would not be extended beyond the end of this Session, unless this House voted in a deliberate way to continue with it. There would have been no sleight of hand or just allowing continuing practice to develop; it would have required a definite decision by this House.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to the Minister. On this question of a ballot, you do not need a crystal ball when you can read the history book. All you need do is look at the House of Commons. Whether you regard it as a misuse or abuse or as greater openness for democracy, the reality is that if you introduce a ballot every Member of this House will be inundated with pro forma Questions not just from the Whips but from every lobby group, think tank and organisation wishing to push a particular point of view. That will not necessarily mean that they will have more than one Question on the Order Paper, but there will be an almost inevitable process of noble Lords tabling that Question because it is to hand and has been formulated for them. The fairness supposedly attributed to the ballot procedure will therefore be completely undermined. You do not need a trial to see that. It is not just a common-sense matter of anticipating the future; it is the reality of what happens, which could be easily discovered by looking at the Order Paper in the other House and, further, looking at the top 100 Questions that are tabled there. On occasion you will find that, by a remarkable coincidence, a large number of them have exactly the same wording as 20 or 30 others.
The Chairman of Committees
First, I thank the noble Lord for referring to me as “the Minister”. That was some long time ago, when I was a very junior Minister in the department of which he was Secretary of State. My own little story of Question Time refers back to that period. On one occasion I was asked a supplementary question that was rather arcane. As I got up, I made a rather sotto voce comment, as I am tempted to do from time to time. When I sat down, the then Leader, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, turned to me and said, “John, remember there’s a nation of lip-readers out there”. Some lip-reading could have gone on this afternoon.
Let us cut to the chase. I recognise that there is concern but there is a willingness to change. We have to do a more deliberate piece of consulting, but that places a responsibility on individuals and groups to come forward with suggestions so that they can be assessed by the committee. I am afraid that it is no good thinking that this is a means of kicking the issue into the long grass, where it will die a death and not see the light of day again. I suspect that there is a two-stage process involved in the future of Question Time. One deals with how Questions are put down and the other with the whole conduct of Question Time, which needs serious examination. That will require a difficult piece of voting. On that basis, the usual wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has shone through yet again and guides us in a way that I think commands the general acceptance of the House. What is important in the noble Lord’s amendment is the deadline of Easter. That is a very important discipline that we have to accept in order to get things moving.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I think the procedure is that we all withdraw our amendments in favour of my noble friend Lord Grenfell’s amendment. This has been a very interesting debate and I am glad that I put down the first question before Christmas because it has led to a flood of questions, leading ultimately to my noble friend’s amendment. I am very glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Naseby
At end to insert “except that on any day on which oral questions are asked the first two such questions shall be allocated according to the procedure currently in place”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end to insert “with the exception of the recommendation on tabling oral questions contained in paragraph six of the report”.
Lord Grenfell
At end to insert “with the exception of the recommendation on tabling oral questions contained in paragraph six of the report, and that this House instructs the Committee to consider and report again on the procedure for tabling oral questions before the Easter recess”.
Lord Berkeley
At end to insert “and that this House instructs the Committee to consider and report on whether the number of oral questions should be increased from four to five each day, and the time allowed increased from 30 to 40 minutes”.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, this is an extremely long group of government amendments. I preface my remarks with an apology to noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill. The letter that I circulated about government amendments was done at an extremely late stage. There is nothing Machiavellian about that: it flows directly from the fact that we are having this debate two days after the end of the Christmas Recess. The Bill team, myself and others were not working over Christmas to the extent that would have permitted us to get the amendments down earlier and inform noble Lords about them. However, I hope that in most cases, if not all, noble Lords will find them helpful and so will forgive me for that.
I start by noting that I will not move government Amendment 3, which relates to Northern Ireland civil servants. On reflection, that amendment is considered unnecessary because Amendment 9 to Schedule 1 does what is needed to remove Northern Ireland civil servants from the scope of the Bill.
In line with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, the Bill was drafted to provide a legislative vehicle for the reform of all public service pension schemes in the UK to make them fairer and sustainable. However, legislative competence for some of the pension schemes is devolved to the Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. We have always been clear that the devolved Administrations would have the final decision as to whether or not the Bill should apply to their devolved pension schemes.
On 26 November, the Northern Ireland Executive announced their decision to bring forward their own legislation to reform the pension schemes of their public servants. These schemes will be based on the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. This will affect schemes relating to Northern Ireland civil servants, the devolved Northern Ireland judiciary and, in relation to Northern Ireland, local government workers, teachers, health service workers, fire and rescue workers, and police and public bodies whose pension provision has been devolved.
On 28 November, the Scottish Executive announced their decision to exclude the small schemes for which they have legislative competence from these reforms. This will affect a small number of members of the junior Scottish judiciary and some Scottish public bodies whose pension provision has been devolved. The Bill will still make provision for Scottish schemes for which Scottish Ministers have executive, but not legislative, competence. These are schemes relating to teachers, health service workers, firefighters, police and local government workers in Scotland. Consequently, I beg to move these amendments that will collectively ensure that the Bill is disapplied from those pension schemes for which the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government have legislative competence.
Amendments 102 and 109 relate to the Scottish Government’s wish to extend a power in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 to enable pension and other benefit schemes to be made for Scottish police cadets and special constables. This will be done by way of an order made under the Scotland Act 1998 which will be laid before Parliament shortly and is expected to commence in 2013. In anticipation of that order, these amendments will ensure that these pension schemes will be included in the reforms legislated for in the Bill. As such, the new pension schemes made for Scottish police cadets and special constables will be reformed in the same way as the other public service pension schemes in Scotland.
The amendments also ensure that any compensation or injury benefit schemes made under the extended powers will not be subject to the reforms. This is consistent with the Bill’s treatment of compensation and injury benefit schemes in other areas of public service, such as the main police schemes. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such equitable treatment is fair and proper, and I beg to move these amendments to the Bill.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his amendments, and for his apology with respect to their late arrival. It is of course understandable that this comes after the holiday period, although I was slightly taken aback to hear just now that the Northern Ireland announcement was made on 26 November. What has been happening since then? Christmas started a month later. I am very surprised that we now have Northern Ireland effectively removed from the Bill on the day before Committee, and the House not being informed about this when the team apparently knew of it a month and a half ago.
Before commenting on these amendments, I myself apologise to the House for being unable to be here for Second Reading. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for having stood in on that occasion.
In considering the Bill most broadly, the first thing that strikes one is the list of professions under Clause 1. These people are the very bedrock of our society. It is crucial to ensure that they have the best conditions, including the best pensions, that are affordable. At the same time, we have to recognise the pressures that an ageing society places on pension provision. The key to squaring the circle is trust; this is going to be a theme in discussing all the amendments to come. We need to incorporate into the Bill a framework that provides clear assurance so that people who perform the public services on which we all depend can face the future with confidence. That means that the Government must place clear, unambiguous commitments in the Bill—not vague promises of Ministers—about what they may really intend. Ministerial promises are simply not good enough, because these measures are intended to be long-term. In the long term, Administrations change and no Administration can bind its successor, so in the long term ministerial assurances are virtually worthless. But if future Administrations are faced with clear primary legislation, then change can be made only by returning to Parliament.
It does not assist in the building of trust when the Government table well over 100 amendments on the day before Committee. Most of these—although not all, as the Minister pointed out and I will demonstrate—arise from the refusal of the Northern Ireland Administration to pass a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Bill. In effect, as we have heard, Northern Ireland is being written out of the Bill. It would be interesting to know what Northern Irish colleagues in this House feel about this. Moreover, given that an important objective of the Bill is to manage the cost of pensions, what implications does this last-minute decision have for the public finances? Presumably this will increase long-term deficit projections—by how much?
More importantly, what negotiations are under way with the Northern Ireland Administration about the future shape of pensions in Northern Ireland; and, indeed, with the Scottish Parliament about the future shape of pensions in Scotland; and, indeed, with the Welsh Assembly, which we are told is still to consider the matter? This Bill has passed the Commons and we do not even yet know who is to be included in it because the Welsh Assembly has not reached its decision.
I am astonished that we have this brief note, circulated the night before, with amendments. We have this brief introduction from the Minister when the Bill has been changed in such a radical and fundamental way. What are the Government going to do now about both Northern Ireland and Scotland? What are they going to do about Wales if the Welsh also refuse to pass a legislative consent Motion? Given that the terms of devolution are different in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the result of all this is going to be a confused plethora of pension conditions throughout the UK—exactly the sort of confused melange that the admirable report by my noble friend Lord Hutton sought to eliminate. Indeed, it was my noble friend’s recommendation 24 that the Government should introduce primary legislation to adopt a new common UK legal framework for public service schemes. This is clearly what the Government are failing to do.
The reference to Scotland is important, because not all the amendments in this group refer solely to Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to Amendment 96, to a “holder of devolved office”. That therefore applies to Northern Ireland and Scotland. Interestingly, the noble Lord did not refer to Amendment 148, which, in defining what a “devolved office” might actually be, excludes Wales. What will happen to Amendment 148 if the Welsh now refuse to accept being included in national procedures? We really ought to be told to whom this legislation is actually going to apply.
Amendments 102 and 109 expressly include Scottish schemes, established under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, within the scope of the Bill. Amendment 139 on the approval of new schemes again refers to all devolved Administrations. What does that mean? It certainly does not mean what is defined by Amendment 148, because we do not know what the Welsh are going to do.
What we have here is a bit of a mess. The Minister must tell us how this mess is going to be resolved. How are we going to try to have some degree of consistency in public pension provision in which people can have confidence throughout the United Kingdom? We can go two particular ways. One is to attempt to negotiate an all-UK structure, which has the sort of simplicity and clarity that was suggested by my noble friend Lord Hutton. The Minister should then tell me what negotiations are proceeding to establish that common UK structure, given the devolved responsibilities of the devolved Governments and Assemblies. We should be completely clear that pensions in Northern Ireland are different from pensions in Scotland, different from pensions in Wales and different from pensions in England, and that the relevant authorities have responsibilities for their particular jurisdictions. However, of course, we do not have that. In Scotland, we have a mixture: some pensions are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and some are not.
Our Amendment 28A—which noble Lords may have noticed is buried in this group so that it is almost undetectable, but it is there, although the noble Lord did not deign to refer to it in his opening remarks—seeks to make some sense of this mess by recognising that regulations relating to local government workers in Scotland should require the approval of the Scottish Government. I am well aware that local government pensions are a reserved power under the Scotland Act. In the past, as the noble Lord said, Scottish Ministers have had executive responsibility for making regulations for public service schemes, but they require Treasury approval. But these have typically concerned minor matters. There has not been any big issue which has been likely to bring about a significant difference of opinion between the Scottish Parliament and the Treasury.
However, this Bill completely transforms the situation. It is a framework Bill that will be followed by regulations that are very substantial indeed. Moreover, the local government workers’ schemes in Scotland, like those in England, are funded schemes. It is important, given the extensive powers of interference conferred on the Treasury by this Bill, that the Scottish authorities have appropriate responsibility for decision-making on those funded schemes.
Since, as I understand it, the UK Government have not used their reserve power on Scottish local pensions in the past—in other words there has not been any disagreement in the past, although I am quite willing to stand corrected as it is quite difficult to research these things—it is surely inappropriate to do so now. It is surely right that the Scottish authorities should be responsible if we are going to go for this devolved structure of pensions and give up on the idea of my noble friend Lord Hutton’s proposal for a common UK scheme.
Far from being technical, this huge swathe of amendments raises major questions over the scope of this Bill and introduces complexity where there was once consistency. If the devolved Administrations are to have entirely separate schemes, so be it, but make it clear, rather than this hotchpotch of amendments and qualifications. If we are to have a Public Service Pensions Bill, not a “some people in the public service and some others not” pensions Bill, the Government must reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. They must bring back to this House a proper, comprehensive structure so that we can understand the relationship between those schemes that will obviously be national, such as the schemes for the Armed Forces, who are of course servants of the Crown, and those schemes which are to be devolved. If we are to have a common scheme, let us get on with the negotiations and bring the common scheme to this House. Last-minute changes as far-reaching as these are entirely unacceptable.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, when I was chair of ACAS, one of my jobs was to try to read between the lines of documents like this, which is very difficult to absorb at such short notice. In reading between the lines—I am only guessing—it seems possible that the Minister has been placed in a difficult position in terms of timetable, which might not be entirely under his control.
I want to make a slightly narrower point than that made by my noble friend Lord Eatwell and probe a little on this issue of Scotland. When the Minister was summing up at Second Reading, he indicated that the Scottish Government had accepted the “generality” of the Government’s proposals, which he said were very much based on those put forward by my noble friend Lord Hutton. In terms of the more detailed proposals, the noble Lord informed us that,
“the Chief Secretary has written to Scottish Ministers inviting them to propose amendments if they feel the provisions of the Bill are not suitable for the Scottish pension scheme”,
and that as of 19 December, no such amendments had been proposed. He concluded that:
“Any regulations made by Scottish Ministers will be subject to the procedures in the Scottish Parliament”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1585.]
I am setting this scene because the point that I want to emphasise is that the Bill is based upon negotiations—these are not technical points that I am trying to make. The Bill is based upon negotiations in England and Wales and has not been subject to the same level of negotiations in Scotland. I am talking about the parties involved in the local government scheme there. I may not know much about the detail of the relationship or the liaison between the Chief Secretary and the Scottish Government, but I do know about genuine involvement and consultation. If you invite someone to a party that is in full swing, they are entitled to feel various emotions, and one of them will almost certainly be resentment that they were not invited earlier. I cannot expect the Minister to be completely frank in the Chamber, but I am slightly puzzled about why the invitation was delayed.
This Bill prescribes the design of Scottish schemes in a way that current UK primary legislation does not. It is vital that the Scots be fully involved in this process and that the Bill should be amended to maintain the powers of the Scottish Parliament to design and regulate the public service pension schemes that are devolved to Scotland. I know that this is a slightly different point from that made by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, but as we are where we are on this. I just want an assurance that the parties involved in this are being fully involved. I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 28A.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I hope that I can clear up some of the confusion in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about this, and I am very pleased that the House has not been deprived of his Second Reading speech.
The noble Lord asked about what this meant in terms of the differences in the way in which the schemes will be applied across the various component parts of the UK. I will deal first with Northern Ireland. I point out that I made it clear at Second Reading that the Northern Ireland Executive were intending to proceed in the way to which these amendments give effect. We were not hiding anything from the House. The other point is that the Northern Ireland Executive have accepted the principles of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, and therefore we would expect that where we end up in Northern Ireland will be very similar to where we are in the rest of the UK.
However, this is a decision for the Northern Ireland Executive, not for us. The Government would have been very happy to include Northern Ireland in the Bill; indeed, that is the basis on which we started, that it would be easier to take something out than to put it in. But it is their decision and their power as a devolved Administration.
In respect of public sector pensions in Scotland and Wales, the areas for which the Scots and Welsh have complete devolved authority are very small. In Scotland, we are talking about part of the judiciary—I gather it involves six judges—and certain public bodies. For the generality of public servants in Scotland, 98% to 99% of them will be covered by the Bill. Those that are being excluded are these small numbers. Equally, in Wales, the number of people for whom the Welsh Assembly has total authority is very small. I think, although I may be wrong, that it only involves councillors and Assembly Members. Again, the vast bulk of the public servants in Wales will be covered by the Bill even as amended. I do not think that we are going to have quite the hotchpotch that the noble Lord is concerned about.
Baroness Donaghy
If this covers so few people—and I come back to Scotland again—why did this not emerge in the Second Reading debate? Why was the House left with the impression that the Scottish devolution issue would cover more than just the few public servants referred to? A slightly misleading impression was given, if the Minister does not mind my saying so, because there is a feeling that the public servants in Scotland have been left behind on this. I emphasise that the negotiations that took place in England and Wales did not take place in Scotland. This is a very important point. I am sorry to keep going on about it, but it is all very well to hide behind technicalities about how many people are involved—I am really quite shocked that it has emerged today that so few people were involved. I just wonder whether this would not have led to a bigger debate at Second Reading.
Lord Newby
The distinction between the very small numbers that I have been talking about and the rest of the public servants in Scotland is that the rest of the public servants in Scotland are covered by the Bill. The schemes established under the Bill for public servants in Scotland were still negotiated in Scotland, but the framework for public sector pensions in Scotland, with the exception of those very small numbers, will be the same as in the rest of the UK. There is devolved power to the extent of the scheme negotiations within the framework of the Bill.
Lord Eatwell
In using the word “power” there, is the Minister aware that it will still require Treasury approval?
Lord Newby
I shall come to that in dealing with the noble Lord’s Amendment 28A. I did not fail to refer to it in any slight meant to the noble Lord. I thought that it was more courteous for me to allow him to make his case and then for me to reply to it.
Amendment 28A would change the current devolution settlement. I know how much importance many noble Lords across all sides of the House attach to devolution matters, but a Bill on the reserved matter of public service pensions is not, in the Government’s view, an appropriate vehicle for reworking the devolution settlement put in place by the Scotland Act 1998 or for rewriting the long-standing Sewel convention. I hope that I can explain what I mean by this.
Part II of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act makes it clear that, with minor exceptions, this Parliament has exclusive competence to legislate for public service pensions in Scotland. This includes the local government pension scheme in Scotland. Requiring the approval of the Scottish Government in relation to reserved matters would run counter to the principles of the Sewel convention. In constitutional terms, approval of the Scottish Parliament in relation to primary legislation on Scottish local government pensions is not needed under the convention. Furthermore, as the Scottish Finance Minister told the Scottish Parliament on 28 November, the Bill does not contain any provisions,
“over pensions for local government, the national health service, teachers or police and fire staff—that would trigger the Sewel convention”.—[Official Report, Scottish Parliament, 28/11/12; col. 14014.]
I can reassure noble Lords that, although the Bill sets a legislative framework setting the parameters for pension scheme designs, Scottish Ministers have the freedom to decide on many of the details of scheme regulations relating to Scottish local government workers. This includes how generous the scheme is. The Treasury has not set a cost ceiling for any of the Scottish schemes. The cost of Scottish schemes will have to be met from the Scottish block grant. Furthermore, Clause 3 explicitly states that Treasury consent is not needed for Scottish local government scheme regulations. When pension regulations are made for the Scottish local government sector, the Scottish Government will design the terms of those pensions under the framework of the Bill, and will put them before the Scottish Parliament. That is how legislation on this topic falls to be dealt with under the devolution settlement. It would be a novel and unhelpful step to make the application to Scotland of legislation that is reserved to Westminster, subject to the prior approval of the Scottish Government in the way suggested by this amendment.
I hope that goes some way to explaining to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, what the situation is in Scotland and why it is not for the Westminster Government to set out or agree the details of the schemes. It is for us to set out the framework and then, under the devolution settlement, for the Scottish Government to have negotiations that will lead to detailed scheme provisions.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to an office with a jurisdiction exercised exclusively in relation to Scotland, or(b) the Lord Chancellor, in any other case. (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may only specify an office in or as regards Scotland or Northern Ireland if the office is not a devolved office.”
Lord Eatwell
“(d) the Defence Fire and Rescue Service”
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 15. These amendments concern the position within the pensions system of Ministry of Defence firefighters and police. Clause 9 provides that the normal pension age of a person under the scheme must be the higher of the person’s state pension age or the age of 65, but three categories of workers are exempted from this provision—fire and rescue workers who are firefighters, members of the police force and members of the Armed Forces. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 defines fire and rescue workers as being persons employed by,
“a fire and rescue authority in England and Wales … the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, or … the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board”.
However, none of this includes firefighters who work for the Ministry of Defence. This issue seems not to have been noticed in another place when the Bill was considered there. Amendment 13 would rectify this omission by including the Defence Fire and Rescue Service in the definition of fire and rescue workers. Amendment 15 does the same job with respect to Ministry of Defence police.
We should make it clear that we are not seeking to extend the exemptions provided under Clause 9 but merely to rectify what appears to us to be an oversight and to ensure consistency of treatment across the same profession. In my years in this House, it has always puzzled me that when very obvious oversights appear in the middle of the discussion of a Bill, somehow Governments of whatever party think it necessary to defend their original position as if it was an ultimate truth and not admit that occasional oversights are made.
Let us turn to the fire and rescue service. There are two aspects to the job of defence fire and rescue service firefighter. They work at home on domestic military bases and other MoD premises and they work abroad when they are deployed in war zones. In the UK, defence fire and rescue firefighters deal with fires, accidents and floods, and firefighters deployed to war zones deal both with fires and the general catastrophic aftermaths of conflicts. The nature of the work they do—I am sure that the House will appreciate its physicality—is very similar to, if not beyond, that to be expected of a domestic firefighter.
The oversight became evident when the Government were contacted by an MoD firefighter in relation to this issue. In their reply, the Government justified—I was going to say invented—their decision to exclude MoD firefighters from the exemptions in the Bill as follows. First, they said that firefighters are covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, and so the benefit structure and contribution rates which apply to MoD firefighters are those of that scheme and not those of the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme. The Civil Service unions accepted an increase in the normal pension age to 65 for all staff joining since 2007 for that general Civil Service scheme. On that basis the Government claimed that MoD firefighters are already subject to the normal pension age of 60 or 65 and so the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, to adopt the new pension age does not apply. The final proposed agreement issued by the Government to the unions on 9 March 2012 includes transitional protection for PCSPS members so that any member who is within 10 years of normal pension age on 1 April will see no change when they retire. However, beyond that there is the proposed tapering arrangement. Although there are many similarities between local authority and MoD firefighters, the Government claimed that the terms of employment, as well as the roles performed, are not identical. Here the Government are correct—the roles performed are more arduous in the MoD than they typically are for domestic firefighters.
During the Second Reading debate, which I had the chance to read, the Minister said:
“The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about MoD firefighters. MoD firefighters are in the Civil Service Pension Scheme at the moment. They will have their pension age linked to the state pension age to ensure consistency within the scheme. The Bill does not move any groups from their current schemes. Indeed, these MoD firefighters have always had different terms and conditions from other firefighters. This already includes a pension age of 65 for new joiners as a result of changes implemented by the previous Administration”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1585.]
I will make a number of points about the Minister’s statement. First, I am afraid that he misspoke. It is not true that the Bill does not move any groups from their current schemes—it does. Clause 28 closes public body schemes listed in Schedule 10, and the Government have the power to move people from those schemes to schemes established under Clause 1 or to create new public body schemes for them. It is not true that people are not moved from one pension scheme to another in this Bill.
Secondly, there is no reason why the Civil Service scheme rules cannot provide for a different retirement age for MoD firefighters as well as for police. Why can that not simply be put into the Civil Service pension scheme rules?
Thirdly, the fact that MoD firefighters have always had different terms and conditions from other firefighters does not mean that their retirement age should not be aligned with that of local authority firefighters in the light of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that uniformed services should have a normal pension age of 60. To quote the noble Lord:
“The exception is in the case of the uniformed services where the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should therefore consider setting a new Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed services”.
MoD firefighters are uniformed, as are the MoD police.
Fourthly, as it stands, the MoD firefighters who have joined since 2007 come under the new rules established then and have a normal pension age of 65, while the rest have a normal pension age of 60. It is true that we on this side of the House, when in Government, introduced the change in 2007, but that was well before the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. In the light of his recommendations, which we accept, all firefighters, including MoD firefighters, should have a pension age of 60.
Finally, in his interim report, the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said:
“The current public service pensions structure was not designed for modern working patterns and has been unable to respond flexibly to changes in this area and to demographic change over the past few decades. This has led to … unequal treatment of members within the same profession”.
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, sought to correct. The position of the MoD firefighters is a prime example of the growth of unequal treatment which we now have the opportunity to correct.
It is unfair for firefighters who serve our Armed Forces to have to work for up to seven years longer than other firefighters, remembering that they can—and do—serve in war zones. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns, recognise that the physical demands on these firefighters are equivalent to or indeed greater than those on other firefighters, and accept this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 15, I will not repeat all the issues that apply to the MoD police. However, I remind the House that MoD police officers are required to carry weapons and wear body armour in many of the areas in which they serve. The physical demands on them are significantly greater than the demands made on most of our police officers. It is true that some of our normal police officers also carry weapons and wear body armour, although it should be noted that the MoD police often carry heavy machine guns. It seems to me that there has simply been an oversight. Will the Government not own up, say that there has been a slip or oversight here, and accept that MoD firefighters and police, as a uniformed service, should have a pension age equivalent to that of other uniformed services? I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, Amendment 15 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova. I am most grateful to them for adding their names to my amendment. I, too, apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading when I might have raised these particular concerns, which I am very grateful to the Ministry of Defence Police Federation for drawing to my attention. As I have only just started to speak on this matter, I declare an interest as a former member and chair of a police authority and a current member of the Independent Police Commission, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington.
As we have heard, the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, recommended that the normal pension age for members of public service pension schemes should be the same as their state pension age, which means that those on the scheme should retire at 65, rising eventually to 67 or 68. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, it was also recognised that those who were in the uniformed services—the Home Office police, fire and rescue service personnel and, of course, the Armed Forces—should have a retirement age of 60, but that this would be kept under regular review. The Government were happy to accept this recommendation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, reminded us, for some unaccountable reason, the Ministry of Defence Police are not treated in the same way as Home Office police as they are members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
I contend that it is reasonable to say that someone on that scheme would be fairly limited to doing mainly desk work, unless, of course, they are James Bond. However, that is most definitely not the case with members of the Ministry of Defence Police. The reason the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, felt that the age for uniformed service personnel should be 60 in future was to recognise the unique and physically demanding nature of the work that they do. However, because the MDP were lumped in with the Civil Service pension scheme—the reason for which I have never really understood—they were never considered separately in his proposals. Indeed, the MDP were not even consulted on this when the Council of Civil Service Unions negotiated the age increase for all other civil servants. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, eloquently laid out, it seems wholly unfair on a number of grounds that they should be treated differently from colleagues who do very much the same sort of work: namely, Home Office police, fire and rescue personnel and our Armed Forces. The Ministry of Defence Police have a pay structure linked to that of Home Office police forces, so why are they to be treated differently in pension terms?
As we have heard, all MDP personnel are required to be armed. They have to wear heavy body armour and equipment which weighs more than four and a half stones and is removed only when they have meal breaks. This means that in a 12-hour shift, they carry that amount of weight around for 11 hours. This can be even more physically demanding than general policing. Unlike Home Office police forces, MDP officers have no option for to move to unarmed work, should they no longer be able to cope with the physical demands of the job. They either have to retire early, as there is little scope to offer easier work assignments, or they could be dismissed on grounds of inefficiency. That is not much of a state thank you after serving in such high-profile roles.
It is a fact that the MDP’s main role is that of counterterrorism. It is easy to see that their officers, who are routinely armed, are exposed to danger every bit as much as their Home Office colleagues. Indeed, MDP officers continue to serve in Afghanistan and other overseas theatres in support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as protecting sites of critical national infrastructure. Did noble Lords know that our Home Office police are not expected routinely to carry guns beyond the age of 55? I certainly did not know that; perhaps I should have done. Therefore, it seems to me even more urgent that this anomaly in pension age provision is hastily cleared up.
The national state pension age is already due to rise to 67 and could well go to 70 and beyond in the future. There is provision, I understand, for negotiation for the normal pension age for MDP officers to be reduced by three years, but I submit that this could still leave a situation whereby officers in their late 60s are expected to carry firearms and their associated equipment weighing four and a half stones. As I say, at the moment, the Government have the power to vary the retirement age from the state pension age by only three years. Therefore, the older these officers are allowed, or expected, to retire, the greater the health and safety issues will become. I urge your Lordships to consider that dilemma.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I would also like consideration to be given to similar arguments relating to the Defence Fire and Rescue Service, where operational firefighters are to be asked to work until they are around 68, whizzing up ladders, rushing about putting out fires and wearing breathing apparatus. As we have heard, they can also be deployed to war zones. Their concerns also urgently need to be addressed.
If this amendment is accepted, it would not reduce the normal pension age for MDP officers to 60 but would allow the Defence Police Federation to continue to negotiate on behalf of its members. I feel that that is a right and proper thing to do. A review of terms of service is being undertaken and the Government will have the power to make a separate decision on the MDP retirement age, if they choose to do so. My amendment simply asks for time to allow those negotiations to continue. Even if my noble friend cannot accept my amendment, I ask him at least to agree to his officials meeting the Defence Police Federation to explore this matter further. However, I hope, of course, that he will accept the amendment.
Lord Newby
My Lords, these amendments seek to add members of the Ministry of Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence Police to the categories of “fire and rescue workers” and “members of a police force” set out in the Bill.
I would like to begin by setting out the current situation before responding to the proposals for change. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, members of these forces are civil servants who currently, and historically, have access to the Civil Service pension scheme. This scheme currently has a pension age of 65. The principle of working beyond 60 for the MoD fire and police services is already established and has existed for a number of years, while the retirement age for the police and fire services has been well below 60.
Secondly, we should remember that the Civil Service scheme is an extremely good pension scheme with benefits which are far beyond the aspirations of many in the private sector. The scheme has provisions in place to ensure that any individuals who face ill health can be provided with their pension early. Alongside this there is, of course, the option for individuals to retire before their retirement age on an actuarially reduced pension. The value of the Civil Service pension scheme is shown in the fact that DFRS and MDP staffing levels remain good and that individuals in this force have already taken employment on the basis of the package of terms and conditions currently in force. The Government do not believe that there are significant recruitment and retention issues associated with the continued use of the Civil Service pension scheme.
Thirdly, it is worth remembering that the employment status of those working in the Defence Fire and Rescue Service and the MoD Police is very different from those working for fire or police authorities. Members of the DFRS and the MDP are direct employees of the Secretary of State for Defence and their remuneration package is managed in a different way. The kind of changes that are suggested by the amendments would make most sense only as part of a fundamental restructuring of not only the terms and conditions of these forces but their roles and responsibilities and they way in which they are managed. They are currently part of a single scheme that is administered at a national level. There would be significant logistical and administrative difficulties in moving them to be part of a locally administered scheme. The Government do not believe that such a restructuring is a way forward.
Having said that, I should point out that, within the new Civil Service scheme, the flexibility will exist for the impact of the later retirement age to be mitigated for certain groups, should this be felt to be justified. This could, for example, be through fully funded early retirement or more generous early retirement factors.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, these issues were not discussed substantively in another place and the amendments have gone down only in very recent days. However, I can give an assurance that the Government will give these matters extremely careful consideration between now and Report. We are very happy to meet members of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Defence Fire and Rescue Service if they would like to do that. I will be in a position to give a more considered response to movers of the amendments and to the House as a whole on or before Report. I therefore urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendment today.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her remarks. I rather pre-empted her discussion of Amendment 15 and I apologise for that. It was, after all, her sensible, balanced and valuable amendment to which we added our names rather than the other way around. I must, of course, accept the Minister’s offer of further consideration. In looking at further consideration, I urge him to put aside the canard of logistical and administrative difficulties. The phrase “logistical and administrative difficulties” is a wonderful excuse for doing nothing on all occasions. As an academic, I recognise that very clearly. It is the doctrine of unripe time: the time is not ripe and therefore we must not do anything. Logistical and administrative difficulties fall into the same pattern.
Nor is the recruitment argument a terribly good one. In this country, where we have 2.8 million people unemployed, it is not hard to recruit people in many professions. The idea that a lack of recruitment difficulties is somehow a justification for maintaining something that is manifestly unfair is not very good. I am delighted that the Government will take this away and consider it. I look forward very much—as, I am sure, does the noble Baroness, Lady Harris—to the Government taking a fair and balanced approach to this issue, which will result in amendments to the Bill that are akin, if not identical, to those we have put down. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
Lord Eatwell
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, we now turn to Clause 3, which I believe to be the most unfortunate part of the Bill as drafted. Everything else, broadly, can be dealt with reasonably straightforwardly but this, I am afraid, goes a bit further. The clause undermines everything that was achieved by my noble friend Lord Hutton in building understanding and trust. It would give any Government of the day unprecedented powers over individuals’ property rights—powers which no ministerial assurances or blandishments can dilute.
The damage is all done in subsection (3) of Clause 3. In Clause 3(3)(b), scheme regulations may,
“make provision by amending any legislation (whenever passed or made)”.
It is no wonder that the Delegated Powers Committee of your Lordships’ House objected so strongly. It made the perfectly balanced and reasonable suggestion that Clause 3(3)(b) be limited,
“so far as it confers power to amend primary legislation, to amendments of Acts passed before the end of this session … and to making only consequential provision or provision that is necessary to ensure consistency”.
Our Amendment 26 is designed to do just this by eliminating the offending Clause 3(3)(b) and allowing Clause 3(2)(b) to take the strain of,
“consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision”.
If the Minister has an alternative way of implementing the proposals of the Delegated Powers Committee, we on this side will be happy to support it. However, as the matter stands, the Henry VIII powers in Clause 3(3)(b) really cannot stand.
Of even greater moment is Clause 3(3)(c), which states that scheme regulations may “make retrospective provision”. Just like that: unqualified, unlimited, they may make any retrospective provision, including the withdrawal of previously accrued rights. A central tenet of pension provision is that benefits that have already accrued are deferred earnings and cannot be reduced. To do so would be akin to taking back a proportion of an employee’s wages that has already been paid.
Indeed, it may well be that Clause 3(3)(c) is actually contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government acknowledge this in the Explanatory Notes, where they say:
“Clause 3: Scheme regulations. This allows for scheme regulations to contain provisions with retrospective effect. Such retrospective changes … may constitute an interference with property within the meaning of Article 1 Protocol 1”.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, signed the Bill as being not in contravention of the European Convention. It is striking that the Explanatory Notes devote several pages to discussion of this particular issue. Pages 44, 45 and 46 of the Explanatory Notes give detailed legal arguments and case citations on the issue of property rights as protected by the European Convention. Ministers have asserted consistently, both in another place and at Second Reading, that they have no intention of removing accrued rights and that this notion of retrospective legislation will never be used to reduce accrued rights. If that is so, why is there all this stuff in the Explanatory Notes about accrued rights? Why do we have all this material here if it is not relevant because Ministers have no intention? If they have no intention, why is that provision in the Bill?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I was not expecting to be on my feet at all, but the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I belong, has for many years persuaded successive Governments to be as full as possible in explaining compatibility statements to enable us to scrutinise whether or not those statements are, in our view, accurate. That is why we welcome the fact that any Explanatory Notes are as full as possible in explaining the Government’s view as to whether or not a Bill is compatible with convention rights. I hope that that is a helpful explanation.
Lord Eatwell
I am grateful to the noble Lord because he has reinforced my point in a very satisfactory way. My point is that the issue referred to here is the compatibility of the threat to accrued rights. That is what the full statement is about, and that is why I am so interested that the Explanatory Notes deal fully with the question of accrued rights. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the Explanatory Notes are full and comprehensive, but why are they there if accrued rights are not in any way under threat?
I return to the discussion of this issue. As the Bill proceeded in the Commons, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury asserted very clearly that the Government would not reduce accrued benefits, having previously said, in a speech on 20 June:
“I also want to make it absolutely clear that we are fully committed to protecting the pension that has been earned to date”.
That is great, but it is inconsistent with Clause 3(3)(c). When he was asked about the retrospective provisions in Clause 3 by Mark Durkan MP, the Chief Secretary replied:
“The hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the clause to which he refers mirror directly those in the Superannuation Act 1972, which this Bill in many cases replaces. It was passed in the year I was born”—
he is younger than me—
“and it has been used by a number of Governments to make adjustments to public service pensions … The provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are in fact more limited than those in the 1972 Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/12; col. 60.]
However, I am afraid that Mr Alexander misspoke. Section 2(3) of the Superannuation Act provides that accrued benefits can be reduced but only with the consent of affected members. However, the Bill as it stands allows for the reduction of accrued benefits without member consent. As such, it does not mirror the Superannuation Act, as the Chief Secretary said.
Amendment 28 gives effect to the Government’s intention for the Bill to mirror the Superannuation Act 1972 by providing exactly the same protection for members that Section 2(3) of the Act provides. As such, it is difficult to see how the Government could object to this amendment.
I move from the discussion in another place to the debate here at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said:
“There is a lot of suspicion about this that is misconceived. Pensions legislation has historically contained such powers”—
actually, it has not—
“which have been seen to be necessary for the lawful and efficient operation of the scheme. They are generally used for minor and technical changes, for rectifying errors and making changes for the benefit of members. The intent of the Bill is simply to allow for these minor changes. There is no sinister intent”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1584.]
If there is no sinister intent, why is Clause 3(3)(c) maintained in this wide form? Why is there no qualification? If this is indeed the way that pensions legislation has historically contained such powers—and I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was referring to the 1972 Act—why are there not the same protections for members as those contained in that Act?
It is also worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said:
“In relation to retrospectivity, the Government have a serious problem. We have to be mindful if there are to be DB schemes in the public sector. We know that there are fewer in the private sector, but those 2.6 million people in the private sector who still have access to a defined benefit scheme know for certain, because of the current law that their accrued rights cannot be changed”.
Accrued rights in the private sector cannot be changed unless members give their consent to a change, perhaps to deal with minor technicalities or deficiencies, which would ultimately improve the quality of their scheme. The noble Lord continued:
“The same rules should apply in the public sector. I do not believe that we can have a different set of rules in relation to accrued rights for people in public sector schemes”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1582.]
Therefore, the scope of Clause 3(3)(c) is unreasonable, unethical and directly undermines the trust that is essential to the effective implementation of the Bill. Amendment 28 achieves what the Government claim they wish to achieve. If the Minister has another suggestion for better achieving the same goal, we will be happy to support it. However, I ask him: why is Clause 3(3)(c) written in these unqualified, global terms? Why do we have a clause in the Bill that states:
“Scheme regulations may … make retrospective provision”?
That is unqualified. Why is that provision there? Why is it not qualified in the way that it has been in previous legislation? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have several amendments in the group that all relate to the same issue of retrospection and the way in which there should be consultation and negotiation on any such change.
Like my noble friend Lord Eatwell, I was not here at Second Reading, for which I apologise, but I thought I should make absolutely clear my overall view of the Bill and my approach to it in my amendments. It can be summarised simply: I do not like the Bill. I do not like the campaign that the Government and their media allies have conducted against the public sector workers who serve them, and against their pension entitlements. In many ways it has been a despicable campaign. In more technical terms, I do not like the way in which the Government have interpreted my noble friend Lord Hutton’s recommendations in terms of attempting to achieve a commonality of approach across all public sector schemes—an ambition in which, as it happens, they have singularly failed because we have ended up with a complete hotchpotch of schemes. The history of all these schemes is different. They relate to different sectors, different industries, different patterns of negotiation and different kinds of jobs. It was therefore difficult to get to commonality. Nevertheless, the Government have attempted to reach that commonality and have made a hash of it.
I have sympathy with all public servants who are detrimentally affected, prospectively and currently, by aspects of the Bill. I have sympathy with firefighters, teachers, civil servants, health service workers and so on. I even have some slight sympathy with the judiciary. However, I am going to focus all my subsequent remarks on the local government scheme. One of the differences between the schemes that exist currently in the public sector is that the local government scheme, unlike the vast majority of other schemes, is a fully funded scheme and always has been. It is therefore on a different basis and the Treasury should approach it differently from the way in which it is attempting to approach the other schemes. Ideally, I would like to exclude the local government scheme entirely from the Bill. I recognise we are not at that point, but it would be the more logical outcome.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, much concern has been expressed about the Bill’s granting of sweeping powers to the Government to make future further changes without adequate public or parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 3 grants extremely wide and retrospective powers to the Government for further radical public sector pension changes adversely affecting public sector employees’ pensions. This undermines the Government’s claim that this would be a “settlement for a generation”. It is generally accepted that public sector pensions represent an element of deferred public sector pay. Clause 3 is an extreme example of a Henry VIII clause. It is one that gives successive Governments the power to make unilateral and retrospective changes to accrued benefits in public sector pension schemes, changing the retirement age without effective parliamentary scrutiny.
This clause should be severely limited, in the view of the BMA, in which I should declare an interest as president, and other health unions. It has expressed concern about the wide scope of powers and has called for limits. The provision runs directly contrary to the Government’s pension guarantee for no more reform for at least 25 years, safeguarding the current generation of public sector workers, and that the Bill protects the benefits already earned by members of existing public sector pension schemes. Instead of protecting accrued rights and making a once-in-a-working-lifetime change to public service pensions, the Bill allows for those very rights to be undermined, throwing public sector workers into uncertainty surrounding their future financial security, even those who will shortly reach retirement age.
The powers granted to the Government in the Bill go beyond the stated purpose as set out in its Explanatory Notes, which is to make changes where legislation is inconsistent with, or requires modification as a consequence of, scheme regulations. Instead, and without justification, this clause allows the Government to make radical changes—for example, to reduce accrued final salary rights without the need for primary legislation and with minimal safeguards of the affirmative procedure, and to drastically change the design of pension schemes and scheme regulations—for instance, making different provisions for different cases or descriptions of persons without having to come back to Parliament to debate primary legislation. It would allow any person to exercise a discretion that was not defined in the Bill, and to breach the 25-year guarantee with no effective means of resisting any breach. The power to retrospectively amend means that accrued pension rights could be affected, which would likely result in a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998 and may well lead to a declaration of incompatibility and other legal challenges.
During the debate on the Bill in another place, the Government stated that most changes affecting members’ rights would be minor and technical, but the Bill is not explicit in this regard. If the Government intend the changes to be minor and technical, then the Bill should say so to avoid this or any future Government having the power to undermine the 25-year guarantee.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I know that the Minister thought that I overdid it a bit at Second Reading when I said that the confidence of public servants was shattered by two successive large sets of negotiations on their pensions. However, I think that this comes back to an issue of trust, and obviously everyone is going through the Bill line by line to see where that trust might be undermined in future.
I support everything that my noble friend Lord Whitty said. As currently drafted, the Bill would allow scheme regulations to make retrospective changes. I made it clear that in principle I did not disagree with that. However, the absolute crunch would be that scheme members or their representatives should agree to any retrospective change and the Government’s commitment that accrued rights up to the date when the scheme was changed would not be reduced. As has already been said, this would simply ensure that workers in public service pension schemes enjoyed the same protection in relation to their accrued pension rights as exist for workers in the private sector under pensions law.
I was concerned about the noble Lord’s reply on this issue at Second Reading. I understand that there is no set standard of protection across the current schemes, as he said. Apparently the Government have chosen not to carry across the protections in retrospectivity that can be seen in previous legislation, such as the Superannuation Act 1972. They are concerned that what the Minister referred to as the “most extreme” of these protections—member consent locks—is not the way forward. The Government say that they are trying to strike the right balance between the protection of members and the efficiency of the scheme, and no one can disagree with that. However, I cannot help thinking that this obsession with member consent locks is all about not getting unanimous agreement to the deal, and that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. What these very reasoned amendments do is codify the Minister’s precise intention. He said that he would take this issue back and further consider the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that he will give the reassurances that we are seeking.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I begin by saying that I completely agree that we are dealing with extremely important provisions in the Bill, particularly with regard to retrospective and legislation-amending powers. I should also say that I am sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. I should like to go through each of the amendments in order, and I hope that I will not detain the House for too long.
Amendment 26 is the first of the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, dealing with retrospection. I should begin by explaining that some powers of retrospection are needed because of the way that pensions legislation is typically split between primary and secondary provisions. This Bill exemplifies that combination. It sets the core framework in primary legislation while the scheme design details, such as the accrual rate, will be set out in secondary legislation. When future changes are made to the secondary legislation, which typically happens in most years to ensure that they run smoothly, it can be necessary to bridge any gaps to the underlying primary legislation, as well as adjusting existing secondary legislation to ensure that it remains consistent. By allowing scheme regulations, which are themselves secondary legislation, to make necessary changes to primary legislation via the affirmative procedure, we believe that we are striking a sensible balance between member protections and parliamentary scrutiny. This approach is commonplace in existing pensions legislation.
However, the Government have listened to what noble Lords have said and have read with interest the 10th Report of the Delegated Powers Committee, which calls into question aspects of the scope of the proposed power. In particular, the report recommends that the power to amend primary legislation should be restricted to amending Acts that have already passed and to making only consequential or consistency provision.
We are considering the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee very carefully and on Report I hope to be able to bring forward amendments on this issue that will satisfy noble Lords’ concerns. I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for saying that if we are able to do so successfully, he will support those amendments. These are important but complicated issues and we are determined to get them right. In responding to the individual amendments that have been tabled, I hope that I can tease out some of the complications and ensure that we do indeed get these issues right.
Lord Whitty
I am not referring to what is in this Bill or what the Minister or any of his colleagues have said. I make that clear. I am talking about the campaign that has been run decrying and denigrating public sector workers and their pension schemes, calling them “feather-bedded” and “gold-plated” and trying to divide public opinion against public servants. It is that aspect of the political operation that I object to, not anything in the Bill.
Lord Newby
I am very relieved to have that qualification. However, I briefly repeat what I said at Second Reading. The schemes that are now going forward, covered by the legislative framework of this Bill, are, in our view, extremely sensible and generous provisions that reflect the importance that the Government attribute to the work undertaken by all the public servants covered by the schemes.
Having got that out of the way, we quite like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It has the advantage of simplicity and would allow schemes to make minor and technical changes in the interests of efficiency but restrict changes that were materially detrimental to members. The wording that he has used in the amendment and the sentiments contained in it will certainly form part of our consideration of what we ourselves table on Report.
Amendment 28 deals with member consent locks. I should be clear, as my colleague the Economic Secretary was in the other place, that the Government have significant concerns about the consent locks contained in the amendment. We do not believe that this is the right way forward. I have previously mentioned that there are a number of options in terms of how to facilitate retrospective powers, and in our view consent locks are very much at the extreme end of this spectrum. We do not think that it is appropriate to give members, employers or anyone else the power unreasonably to hold each other or the Government to ransom and to inhibit changes for the greater good. There have been some damaging examples of this in the past. Therefore, the application of universal consent locks is not an avenue that we intend to investigate as we develop our amendment on this subject for Report.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, perhaps it will assist the Minister if I point out that this is not a universal consent lock; it refers purely to accrued rights and indeed, as I said, it reflects the Superannuation Act 1972.
I am the chairman of a private sector pension fund; I did not declare an interest because, as this is about public sector pensions, there is no particular interest for me to declare. With regard to the extreme end of the spectrum, we have used consent locks in the private sector while negotiating various reforms of rights and have always found that negotiations with members are fruitful and produce generally positive results. I therefore do not think that so-called consent locks should be seen as extreme; they are simply the fruitful basis of consensual reform of a pension scheme.
Lord Newby
I hear what the noble Lord says and I hope that our amendments can satisfy him in this area; I suspect they will do so without having consent locks. However, it will be a good outcome if he is happy at the end.
On Amendment 30, discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Witty, as part of the debate about retrospective powers, our view is that it simply does not do that. Clause 3(5) deals with the generality of Treasury powers and this amendment would loosen up the area that the Treasury would have to consider. The Treasury would not then look at changes to schemes that were revenue-neutral. Our view is that in order to meet the requirement by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that we need a greater degree of consistency across the schemes, it would be sensible for the Treasury to look at changes, whether or not they have a financial implication, to try to ensure that we maintain consistency to the maximum possible extent.
Moving to Amendments 116 and 119, which deal with consultation, this takes us back to a debate in the other place about the appropriate statutory consultation requirements for changes in scheme regulations for the new schemes. In the other place the Government set out the reasons why it is not appropriate that primary legislation should require that all consultation on such changes be carried out with a view to agreement. As made clear in the Government’s consultation principles, consultation can have a number of purposes, including garnering views and preferences, understanding possible unintended consequences of a policy or getting views on implementation. The Bill already goes further than those consultation principles, not to mention the arrangements in place for a number of the existing public service pension schemes, in requiring that all changes to scheme regulations would undergo statutory consultation. However, such consultation must be proportionate; it would not be right for us to establish today that all consultation must seek to reach agreement, as that will not always be possible, or indeed the aim of the exercise.
Amendment 119 goes even further, requiring that all changes to scheme regulations should undergo not only consultation with a view to reaching agreement but also a parliamentary reporting process. In the case of changes to the protected elements set out in new subsection (6), scheme regulations could be changed only by agreement. We believe that this is an impractical measure. Changes are required to scheme regulations for the most minor of reasons. Surely it cannot be right or sensible that such an exhaustive consultation procedure be put in place for every such minor instance. Instead, the Government have established a balance in their consultation requirements. Clause 19 puts in place a statutory requirement for consultation. Clause 20 goes further than this and puts in place more onerous requirements for those situations where a future Government may seek to amend the core elements of the new schemes. This already goes further than some feel is appropriate in binding the hands of future Administrations. However, the Government are determined that this protection should remain in order to give confidence to members of those schemes that the Government are committed to the scheme designs that have been negotiated.
Amendment 119 also makes changes to the protected elements set out in Clause 20. These are the core elements of the schemes protected by the extra consultation requirements in the clause. The Government have included the career-average nature of the schemes, member contribution rates and benefit accrual rates in these protected elements, and are convinced that including these elements strikes the right balance between giving reassurance to members and ensuring that schemes are flexible enough to operate in the real world. Finally, Amendment 119 also seeks to require agreement through consultation to any change to the protected elements before such a change could be made.
The Government are committed to the reforms to pensions set out in the Bill and in the separate documents that describe the details of the new schemes that have been negotiated with member representatives. We have put a great amount of time and resource into developing these schemes and have come to what we believe are the right outcomes in the designs that have been established. However, it would be irresponsible and frankly unrealistic for this Government to seek to bind the hands of all future Governments within the next 25 years, as this part of the amendment would seek to do. Instead we have sought to put in place a more onerous process that would cause any future Governments seeking to fundamentally change these pensions to properly consider the impact of their actions and to justify the need for such changes to those affected and to Parliament.
Amendment 120 is intended to be consequential on some of these other changes and would amend the provision in Clause 21 to specify that scheme regulations will be subject to the negative procedure unless otherwise specified. However, the amendments in question do not propose any change to the procedure around scheme regulations, and therefore we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that in view of the assurance I have been able to give about amendments coming forward on Report, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from around the House for the propositions that I advanced with respect to Amendment 26. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty, who had his own very sensible amendments, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to my noble friend Baroness Donaghy and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Those sympathetic noises and/or general support are most encouraging. I was also delighted to hear sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for Amendment 27 and especially Amendment 28. As currently drafted, Clause 33(a) and (c) disfigure this Bill and we look forward with great interest to hearing the Government’s proposals. It would be enormously helpful if there could be a degree of consultation with those Members who have spoken from these Benches as well as, if she wishes, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, prior to those amendments finally being tabled. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the commitment that, whether or not there is consultation, the amendments revising these important clauses will be put down at least one week before Report to allow Members to consider what may be quite complex amendments with some care and be able therefore to respond effectively and appropriately on Report.
I am delighted these remarks have received a sympathetic response, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
Rape in Armed Conflict
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their strategy for ensuring that United Kingdom government-funded medical care for women and girls impregnated by rape in armed conflict is non-discriminatory and includes abortion services where they are medically necessary in compliance with international humanitarian law.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the next debate is timed and the timing is very tight. Would noble Lords who have six minutes to speak make sure that they sit down as the clock hits six—or, preferably, momentarily before—to ensure that the Minister has as much time as possible to reply to the points raised in this important debate?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, the central question that this debate seeks to clarify is the Government’s strategy for ensuring that UK-funded medical care for women and girls impregnated by rape in armed conflict is non-discriminatory and includes the provision of safe abortion services where medically appropriate and necessary. This is the Government’s obligation under international humanitarian law, including the medical mandates of the Geneva conventions. Despite these legal mandates and the life and health-threatening nature of many pregnancies arising out of war rape, girls and women raped in armed conflict are routinely denied safe abortions in humanitarian medical settings, including those funded by DfID.
I am grateful to the international NGO, Global Justice Centre, and its dynamic president, Janet Benshoof, and her staff, for providing me with background information for this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister and her advisers for meeting me to discuss the issues in depth. The Minister has a strong commitment to equality for women and respect for international humanitarian law. I look forward to her reply, which may be influential well beyond this country and enable the UK to provide strong international leadership.
Sexual violence against women is a global evil. In its most pernicious form, rape of girls and women is used as a weapon of choice in the majority of today’s armed conflicts. All rapes are terrible, but rape used as a weapon of war is often fatal. About 70% of conflict-related rapes in the DRC are gang rapes, most accompanied by mutilating injuries to women, including deliberate HIV infection. One-third of the victims of war rape in the DRC are girls under the age of 18 and, as many are raped in the context of sexual slavery, they incur the greatest risk of pregnancy.
Girls and women subject to rape used as a weapon of war are persons “wounded and sick” in armed conflict, guaranteed absolute rights to non-discriminatory, appropriate and necessary medical care under the Geneva conventions. Yet these women war victims are routinely denied, by blanket exclusions, life and health-saving abortions in humanitarian settings, leaving them with the terrible “choice” of risking an unsafe abortion, suicide or being forced to bear the child of their rapists.
War rape is torture. Denying a rape victim an abortion when there is medical need is also capable of amounting to a form of torture. In a recent statement, the World Organisation Against Torture, the largest global network of NGOs working against torture, said:
“To prevent a rape victim from access to abortion is contrary to the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
The right at stake is not a right to abortion; it is the right of everyone “wounded and sick” in armed conflicts, including women, to appropriate and necessary life and health-saving medical care. Plastic surgery, blood transfusions, amputations, prostheses, dental treatment and penile reconstruction surgery are all medical procedures protected by international law when needed by persons “wounded and sick” in armed conflict. The same applies, or should apply, to the termination of pregnancies where the continuing of a pregnancy creates a serious risk to the life and physical and mental health of the raped woman or girl.
Why are women raped in war being denied access to appropriate and necessary medical care by means of safe abortions where the continuation of the pregnancy threatens the life and health of the woman or girl? Two powerful forces perpetuate the anti-abortion medical protocols and sweepingly broad exclusions imposed on the provision of healthcare to women raped in war—the United States Government and the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross. The United States imposes a “no abortion” total ban in its foreign aid, requiring all recipients, including foreign Governments, the ICRC and UN entities, to pledge not to discuss abortion or provide abortions with US funds. The US has eliminated previously existing exceptions allowing abortions for rape or to save the life of the woman.
The United States and the UK largely fund the same humanitarian organisations. Only one of the top 10 recipients of DfID humanitarian funding, the World Health Organisation, segregates its US funds from DfID and other donor funds to ensure the integrity of its abortion-related work. The ICRC, whose largest single donor is the United States, is clear in its internal operational guidelines for ICRC staff treating women victims of sexual violence in armed conflict that its medical staff “do not perform abortions”. The guidelines further discourage abortion referrals on the ground that making such referrals might impair the reputation of the ICRC in the conflict country.
The ICRC is DfID’s partner of choice in conflict situations and the largest recipient of DfID aid to humanitarian organisations. I was one of 43 British parliamentarians, including three former leaders of my party, who wrote to President Obama in February 2012 recalling the absolute rights of girls and women raped in war to non-discriminatory care, including abortions, under the Geneva and torture conventions. We requested the President to lift the US abortion ban on aid to war victims. To date, he has not yet done so. Denying medically needed abortions for victims of rape in war, including girls targeted for forced pregnancy as an element of genocide, is barbaric. Our Government should fill the vacuum of global leadership on this issue by ensuring that DfID’s humanitarian aid advances, and does not undermine, the rights of women raped in war to non-discriminatory medical care, which includes abortions.
The issue has been raised in Parliament since 2010. The Government have expressed their concerns about the US abortion ban, noting that it now prohibits abortions in cases of rape or to save a woman’s life. However, the Government appear neither to have taken steps to ensure in practice that UK funds are not used to support facilities that provide discriminatory care for women raped in war, nor requested the US to lift the ban on victims of war rape.
DfID’s aid programme apparently defers to local anti-abortion laws. This breaches the UK’s international humanitarian law obligations when the aid is supporting medical care for war victims. DfID-funded humanitarian entities such as the ICRC do not even provide abortions for war rape victims in conflict countries where abortions are legal for rape victims, as in the Sudan.
The Minister’s Written Answers and those of the honourable Lynne Featherstone MP on this issue are inconsistent about whether international humanitarian law is trumped by incompatible national law. Time prevents me from citing the inconsistent answers but I have given the references to my noble friend the Minister. I ask her to clarify the apparent contradiction in those answers and to explain the following points: first, how DfID policy implements UK law, as set out in the UK military manual, that national laws are relevant in conflict situations only so far as they do not conflict with international humanitarian law mandates; secondly, whether DfID monitoring or assessments of the performance of funded humanitarian entities includes, when applicable, assessing their compliance with the medical mandates of international humanitarian law; thirdly, whether DfID is engaged in any discussions with the ICRC on the question of the ICRC segregating its compromised US funding from that of DfID and other donors to provide abortions for war victims, or whether in any other way the ICRC can ensure that women war rape victims treated by the ICRC are able to have access to abortion services from non-ICRC medical providers. Fourthly, do the Government have any plans to make a request to President Obama to lift the abortion ban on women raped in armed conflict as a matter of US compliance with the Geneva conventions?
Finally, can the Minister confirm that excluding access to abortions for women raped in war where such medical treatment is appropriate and necessary is discriminatory and likely to breach the Geneva conventions and, most important, that international humanitarian law takes precedence over conflicting national laws which authorise torture or serious ill treatment by banning medically necessary abortions for the victims of rape in armed conflict?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, at the outset I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this debate so convincingly and eloquently and for raising concerns about what clearly are life or death issues. Over many years I have been visiting conflict-afflicted fragile states where I have met and talked to women who have suffered the agony of brutal rape and where sexual violence is the shocking and specific consequence of conflict. These women are traumatised, stigmatised and often ostracised by their families.
I firmly reject the notion that dealing with rape is down to culture, custom and religion and that that somehow excuses the denial of the right to safe abortion for women who have often endured mass rape which has scarred them both physically and psychologically. They are attacked while they go to fetch firewood or food for their families. In Darfur some women told me that they had to choose between the threat of rape and feeding their families. It is time for us to assume responsibility and to go beyond simply condemning the perpetrators of rape and instead to take steps to end it. Indeed, we must recognise, as Hillary Clinton has said, that it is not cultural, it is criminal.
In 2010, I visited the Panzi Hospital in Congo run by Dr Denis Mukwege and I talked to three women who only the day before had been attacked and raped several times as they walked home from the market with their children. They were traumatised, but their fortitude and strength were overwhelming. I could barely hold back the tears. Their main concern was not to talk about their suffering but to ask for a search to be made for their children whom they had encouraged to run away when the attack took place. I feared that they may be pregnant and would need terminations, but abortion is illegal in Congo.
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, US abortion restrictions mean that humanitarian aid managed by the International Committee of the Red Cross cannot be used for the victims of rape. These draconian restrictions prevent Governments, NGOs and humanitarian aid providers such as DfID and ECHO, the European humanitarian aid office, from providing the option of abortion to women and girls who have been raped. The UK is completely compromised by the no-abortion prohibition put on US humanitarian aid which prevents all humanitarian entities funded by the US from speaking out about abortion, or indeed from providing abortion services—even a life-saving abortion for a very young girl raped in conflict. This flies in the face of both international humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions, which say that victims of rape are entitled to,
“receive, to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition”.
Similarly, US domestic law requires such a response through the Geneva Conventions Act and the joint services manual of armed conflict.
I have three specific questions for the Minister. Norway has made a bilateral request to the US to ask it to lift the abortion ban on humanitarian aid for women raped in war as a matter of US compliance with the Geneva conventions. Why has the UK not followed Norway’s example? In fact, as I have said, the ban actually compromises the UK and, of course, it also affects the ICRC, MERLIN, the UNFPA, UNICEF and others engaged in humanitarian work. In countries such as Sudan and the DRC, countries that, incidentally, receive high levels of UK aid, women raped in war are denied the abortions to which they are absolutely entitled as persons who are “wounded and sick”. They may take their own lives or risk an unsafe abortion. Given the US stance on abortion, surely the UK is the country with the clout that can make a difference. The UK is a substantial donor through its involvement with ECHO and its own development and humanitarian assistance. This country must take global leadership on this matter. It is clear that women raped in war are persons who are wounded and sick in armed conflict, and UK law is also clear that the medical care rights of all persons wounded and sick in war are absolute.
A major problem is that it is DfID’s practice to lump all rape victims together and thus fail to give women and girls who are rape victims their special rights under the Geneva conventions as war victims. Tonight we are discussing a failure of will to bring about the changes that will deliver some justice to all women who have endured such suffering.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, this important topic needs to be discussed more often and at a time when many more Members are in their place. For me this is a very distressing subject because, as I get older, I find that less value is placed on women, not more. Recently we saw the most appalling incident of rape in Delhi. During the war between Bangladesh and Pakistan, some 2,000 women were kept in cages. They were not given any clothes because they would use them to hang themselves. They were used by the soldiers. Appalling things are done to women during conflict and in war situations. But a woman who becomes pregnant because she has been raped, perhaps many times, is supposed to have the baby. What is that baby going to do for her? Is that baby going to be a child of love? It will be a child of hate and a reminder for the rest of a woman’s life of what happened to her. How can we inflict that kind of situation on any woman anywhere?
We are very protected in this country; we are sitting in a cocoon, but other countries are not so cocooned. The Americans are more cocooned than anybody else in the world and I do not think they understand what the real world is like. I do not think they understand what happens to women during conflicts in poor countries. It is appalling that they cannot see the need.
Many years ago, during the Bosnia conflict, Marie Stopes International held a function in this place. Other NGOs were saying that they could not perform abortions because there was not enough time for counselling and there were no proper operating theatres. My goodness, those women had been raped from morning till night. They did not want counselling or proper operating theatres, they just did not want to bear the children. That is the bottom line. Why should a woman be forced to bear a child that she never wanted and could not want?
The only way forward is for DfID to separate itself completely from all the US-funded agencies and concentrate on abortion and women’s health. Why bother with anything else? Women comprise half the population and they do not get much attention in this world. It is time that we in this country decided that all our money should go to save and to serve women. This is what I would like to see. It is time to stop pussyfooting around and to do something about it.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his dedication. I also pay tribute to the Global Justice Centre for its long leadership.
In 1971, as a 12 year-old in Bangladesh, I met women who were raped with impunity by Pakistani soldiers. These women were mothers, daughters and sisters, often abandoned on the streets or left to die. I have always regarded this as a brutal rape of a nation. Most women did not receive any medical or social support or intervention and were forced to bear the pregnancy. Since then, many more wars have continued to blight our world. In the 36 most recent conflicts, mass rape has been documented, yet the level of service and support remains unacceptable and inadequate. It is a barbaric practice of targeting girls and women for forced pregnancy as an element of genocide, as has been said. The denial of necessary abortion for victims of rape in war must itself be considered barbaric and entirely uncivilised. The Geneva Convention requires non-discriminatory medical care to be provided, whether by the state in conflict or by others.
Thirty-three years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which included the prevention of all forms of violence against women. This treaty was signed by the UK Government on 22 July 1981, and Members of this House should recall that it was ratified on 7 April 1986. The United States, on the other hand, has the questionable honour of being in the company of six other countries—Iran, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Palau and Tonga—that have all so far refused to ratify this treaty which is vital for the fair treatment of women around the world.
In many societies, a culture of patriarchy and the fear of an unenlightened civic and religious leadership lead to the stigmatisation and marginalisation of women who are left unable to report rape, let alone to have treatment and see justice served. One incident of hope is being witnessed in India and may be a path for those voices which have until now suffered in silence—those who have felt compelled not to report rape and violence, fearing repercussion from their attackers as well as from within their family. This is where the law and law enforcement is critical. It is not just in India; violence against women is a global epidemic of immense magnitude, most brutally and mercilessly executed within our homes, witnessed by our family members and our children. Our coercive and collective silence is responsible for its continued menace, in our homes or during war and conflict. I accept that it is difficult for many countries to grapple with these issues, not least where religious guidance supersedes humanitarian consideration. In such grave circumstances, women should have recourse to preventive care and non-discriminatory medical care on the basis of the mother's life or health being in danger.
When I stood before this House on 7 October 2010, I said that rape as a weapon of war leads to the deaths of thousands of girls and women. A year later, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict said:
“Sexual violence has become a tactic of choice for armed groups, being cheaper, more destructive and easier to get away with than other methods of warfare”.
That little has changed since we both spoke up on these matters is a damning indictment. We cannot be subject to the policy of a nation that has refused to ratify a treaty eliminating all forms of discrimination against women when we have ratified it.
We must, as a society and as a civilisation, reject all forms of violence against women. Where used as a tool and a weapon of war, it is specifically designed to impede the advancement of women and to maintain their subordinate status. By allowing the destruction of the lives of women, we allow them to continue not to have a stake in society. This, I humbly suggest, is something that our Government cannot support. I hope that we will not compromise our legal obligation at the behest of any other nation, even one with whom we have our closest ties. It cannot be right that the policy of a single nation can compromise the legal obligation of the United Kingdom. In the light of this discussion, what response will the Minister make in terms of the representation that the Government make?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has for many decades been a great champion of women’s rights. I am glad that he has raised this issue tonight. It is only recently that rape has been acknowledged as one of the hidden elements of war. Rape in war was always portrayed historically as a sexual and personal matter that was somehow about military men’s need for sexual gratification, when in fact it is now recognised as a tactic of war and a threat to international security, and is a recognised war crime. The Geneva Conventions expressly prohibit rape. In recent decades, we have seen a growing understanding of the function and effects of rape.
A great woman in the law is Judge Navi Pillay, the main judge in the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. I remember hearing her describing the rape in Rwanda of 500,000 women as the destruction of the spirit, of the will to live and of life itself. She described it as being about social control and as a process of destroying the Tutsi as an ethnic group. The reason it was seen to be so much about destroying life was because it was a question of making your enemy’s women carry your children. When her court found Jean-Paul Akayesu guilty of genocide, it held that rape and sexual assault constituted acts of genocide in so far as they were committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a targeted group. Rape is often about ethnic cleansing, or the ethnic reconfiguring, of a population. We saw it in Rwanda, and have seen it since in Congo and Darfur: tens of thousands of rapes, and women profoundly traumatised as well as physically damaged internally, mutilated and infected with disease. We have heard the descriptions of the tearing of organs and the vagina. They are unbearable to hear and to read.
For those women and girls who become pregnant, their suffering is prolonged. They face increased rates of maternal mortality, and when they are forced to resort to illegal abortion it often leads to infection, scarring, sterilisation and frequently death. If left pregnant by the enemy—we must think about this—the women are often ostracised by their own communities, abandoned by their spouses, and experience physical violence from parts of their communities who are ashamed of them and who see them as the carriers of the enemy’s seed. The children produced are despised as the product of the enemy. We must see this as being carried on through generations. What these women suffer, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, is torture—cruel and inhumane treatment. Women must be able to make choices about their lives after such unimaginable horror. They need good medical care, and advice must be afforded to them. None of us should be the people who decide whether they should have an abortion. It must be a matter for them.
The United States of America is still putting abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid, as other people have said. It is for that reason, one can be sure, that the Red Cross is falling in line with its policy, because it is anxious not to alienate major players in the international field. I am afraid that the United States holds that trump card. It must be persuaded by partners—by other nations like our own—that what it is doing is an affront to international law. It is a violation of women’s rights under international human rights and humanitarian law, including under the Geneva Conventions.
When I speak to women of religious conviction and describe to them the testimonies that I have heard from women—just as my noble friend Lady Kinnock described—I never hear from them that women in extremis should be denied the right to make a choice. It is for those individual women to make peace with their God, and not for us to do it on their behalf.
The United Kingdom Government should be pressing for change in the US policy, and should have a very clear position with regard to our policy and those of the organisations that we fund in these terribly conflicted parts of the world. This is not just about humanity and compassion; it is about violations of rights and international law. If the rule of law means anything, we must be upholders and champions of it throughout the world.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lester for not only securing this debate but having the courage to raise what is a very contentious issue. It is difficult to estimate how many women have been raped during armed conflict, but a survey in the American Journal of Public Health a year ago estimated that in the Congo, over 1,000 women were raped every day. We know that rape is a weapon of war and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, is also a step to genocide.
Closer to home, I was fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to be in Tirana in the spring of 1999 when the people of Kosovo were fleeing from the Serbs. I was fortunate because I witnessed the unquestioning and generous help that ordinary Albanians were giving the refugees, mostly total strangers to them. However, it was harrowing to visit one of the hospitals and hear the stories of some of the women who were brave enough to tell what had happened to them. Some had been gang-raped by soldiers, some had been brutally raped and then abused with rifle butts, broken bottles and, in one case I heard of, with burning plastic bottles. Noble Lords can imagine the suffering.
The trauma is suffered on many levels. There is appalling physical injury and infection to be dealt with. There is great mental suffering. Children may have witnessed the rape of their mothers and are deeply traumatised as well. Husbands may reject or leave a wife who has been raped. There is social exclusion from the group, and shame heaped upon the victim by the community. Many women do not admit what has happened to them because of this.
If pregnancy results from the rape, support and counselling will be needed for the victim, although I think the idea of proper counselling in conflict zones is just pie in the sky. The majority of women will want safe abortion; without safe abortion provision, women who have been raped will try to end the pregnancy by unsafe means. The International Conference on Population and Development, held by the UNFPA in Cairo as long ago as 1994, stated in its programme of action that human rights abuses occur when a woman is forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy; this is degrading and causes mental suffering especially when the pregnancy is the result of rape.
I was not going to repeat the legal arguments but I think we have time to remind ourselves. As my noble friend has told the House, under the Geneva Convention, women who have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war fall into the category of “wounded and sick” and should have equal access to medical treatment. The UN Convention Against Torture recognises that safe abortion is a necessary element of complete medical services for injuries resulting from torture. Rape is torture, and the denial of correct medical treatment after rape is therefore, in itself, cruel and inhuman treatment—torture, in other words.
The purpose of this debate is to try to clarify just what treatment women can get from the humanitarian programmes provided by DfID. Despite President Obama’s lifting of the “global gag” rule when he came in office, abortion is still effectively banned as part of US humanitarian aid, as we have heard, which ignores the fact that the USA recognises girls and women raped in armed conflict as victims of torture. The UNFPA receives funding from the USA and would lose its funding from that source if it was using money from other donors, such as us, for abortion in the same field of operation. The UK Government have been exemplary in recognising the need for safe abortion as a necessary part of treating women who have been raped in conflict, but some of us have had confusing replies when we have tried to establish whether the USA ruling is preventing other countries doing this work when funds are pooled by agencies such as UNFPA.
On a slightly different matter, I also ask my noble friend the Minister to what extent emergency contraception—hormone—pills are used after rape. Emergency contraception is not abortion; it prevents ovulation. It can be taken up to two days after intercourse; five days for some of the new products which are becoming available. Intra-uterine devices can also be used up to five days after sexual intercourse and will prevent ovulation if they contain copper. These methods are very easy to administer. They are cheap and do not carry quite so much baggage as surgical abortion for people working in the field.
If the evidence is lacking, will research be commissioned urgently so that we can live up to our legal and moral obligations to minimise the terrible suffering of victims of conflict and sexual violence?
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this important debate. Wartime sexual violence is one of history’s greatest silences. However, as my noble friend Lady Kinnock described, since the 1990s there has been an increased awareness of sexual violence in wartime due to the significant impact of armed conflicts on civilian populations. According to UN Women, 90% of casualties in contemporary conflicts are civilians, and the majority of those are women and children.
Sadly, the effects often continue beyond war. Post-conflict studies from Rwanda, where up to half a million women were raped during the conflict, show a spiral of continuing violence against women. The same cycle is being repeated in Syria right now, with reports from organisations like Human Rights Watch of Syrian government forces and militias sexually abusing girls as young as 12.
This country needs to live up to its commitment to protect women. Violence against women as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes; we have to do better to ensure action against the perpetrators. However, we must be tough not only on the crime but its causes. This means that we must tackle the underlying problems of lack of empowerment, education and inclusion.
The unanimous adoption 12 years ago of Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security was a landmark decision in which the situation of women in armed conflict was specifically addressed. The resolution called for their participation at all levels of decision-making on conflict resolution and peace-building. The UN recognised that women’s exclusion from peace processes not only contravened their rights but weakened the prospects for sustainable peace. Since the adoption of Resolution 1325, four supporting resolutions have been adopted by the Security Council. All focus on three key goals: strengthening women’s participation in decision-making; ending sexual violence and impunity; and providing a system of accountability. Together, the resolutions provide a powerful framework and mandate for implementing and measuring change in the lives of women in conflict-affected countries.
As a member of the UN Women executive, Britain has a responsibility to help ensure that UN Women has commitment both from us and the international community. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that the Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, will make that a priority. UN Women has great potential, but that potential will not survive without our support. Currently it does not have the long-term backing that everyone agrees is necessary for the organisation to take off. The aim is to join up the work that is done across the UN on gender equality and women’s empowerment, pooling resources and effort to increase its impact and reach.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others in tonight’s debate, girls and women who are raped and become pregnant have rights under the Geneva Convention to have full medical care, which must include their choice of an abortion. I repeat the clarification sought by the noble Lord on what appear to be contradictory statements previously made to the House by the Minister. Due to time limits I will not repeat the exact quotes, but it is vital that we have clarification on this issue.
I also want to repeat the question and the point made by my noble friends, in particular my noble friend Lady Kinnock. Will the Government follow the call by Norway to seek changes in the American Government’s attitude on this important issue?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lester for securing this debate and for all his work in this area. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions.
The Government have put women and girls at the heart of their international development work. Our Strategic Vision for Girls and Women sets out our strategy on delaying first pregnancy, support for safe childbirth and the prevention of violence against women and girls. We recognise that violence against women and girls is widespread, with high prevalence and devastating consequences. It has often been hidden and accepted for far too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, is right to quote Hillary Clinton: rape is not cultural; it is criminal. It is brutal, as she and the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Uddin, and others, have said.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that tackling violence against women and girls is a central part of the UK’s development policy. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone continues her very active efforts in this area as champion of combating violence against women and girls. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made the prevention of sexual violence in conflict countries a key priority for the UK’s G8 presidency this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right to highlight the causes of the abuse of women and the assumption of the inequality of women. Millions of women and girls have no control over the circumstances in which they become pregnant. Every year 47,000 die as a result of unsafe abortion; millions more are permanently injured. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that the UK is one of only a handful of donors willing to tackle this contentious issue, and we will continue to do so. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, that we are taking a lead here and will continue to do so.
This year we have major opportunities to secure greater international commitment to eliminating violence against women and girls. Key here are the Commission on the Status of Women, and our presidency of the G8, where for the first time the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative will put this issue before G8 Foreign Ministers. Sexual violence causes physical and psychological damage to millions of women and girls and in the worst cases results in loss of life, as we have just seen in the terrible cases in India referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. A number of women and girls who are victims will be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. They may seek abortion, even when these services are not safely or legally available. In these situations the UK policy is clear: UK aid can be used, without exception, to provide safe abortion care where necessary and to the extent allowed by national laws. I can assure noble Lords that UK aid is not in any way influenced by the restrictions in place on US funding. Women and girls who are survivors of rape should have access to sensitive and high quality care that includes counselling and emotional support. I can assure my noble friend Lady Tonge that this includes access to emergency contraception—we recognise the importance of that—and presumptive treatment against sexually transmitted infections including post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention.
My noble friend Lord Lester is flagging here the particular circumstances of sexual violence in armed conflict. Rape being recognised as a war crime was a landmark achievement. It has long been held that women are entitled to equal protection under international humanitarian law to that received by men. As we know, and as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Kinnock, and others said, rape is used as an extremely effective weapon of war. Let me address the central question of UK-funded medical care for women and girls raped in conflict. Parties to an armed conflict are obliged to provide all wounded and sick victims of armed conflict with humane treatment. To the extent practicable and with the least possible delay, they are obliged to provide the medical care and attention required by the given condition without discrimination except on medical grounds. This includes appropriate life-saving medical care which, in our view, may include the provision of abortion to women raped in conflict if it is deemed medically necessary.
The UK military manual sets out the UK’s interpretation of international humanitarian law applicable to the operation of our Armed Forces. While it does not itself apply to aid funding, it is a useful interpretation of the international humanitarian law context in conflict zones. As the manual notes, and as my noble friend Lord Lester pointed out, where there is a direct conflict between national law and the fundamental obligation on parties to a conflict under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the obligation is to comply with Common Article 3. That article provides that those not participating in hostilities should be treated humanely. It prohibits murder, torture, humiliating and degrading treatment and, of course, rape, and requires that the wounded and sick are collected and cared for. The denial of abortion in a situation that is life threatening or causing unbearable suffering to a victim of armed conflict may therefore contravene Common Article 3. Therefore, an abortion may be offered despite being in breach of national law by parties to the conflict or humanitarian organisations providing medical care and assistance. Clearly, this service provision very much depends on the facts of each situation but I state clearly that it is our view that there is no blanket ban on such medical help when covered by international humanitarian law even if national laws might be at variance with that.
I also assure my noble friend Lord Lester that DfID requires that all UK-funded humanitarian partners abide by humanitarian principles, including non-discriminatory provision of assistance. In conflict situations, DfID expects all medical humanitarian agencies to observe and abide by international law, including international humanitarian law, in the activities that they provide. DfID’s monitoring of projects focuses on how the agency has contributed to saving lives and alleviating suffering, and these findings inform our funding decisions. To be clear, in all funded humanitarian activities, the UK requires all its humanitarian partners to adhere to widely agreed international principles of humanitarian action: those of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality. All humanitarian assistance is provided on the basis of need and without discrimination on any grounds.
My noble friend Lord Lester also asked whether DfID has asked the ICRC to segregate its US funding from that of the UK. DfID respects the mandates and independence of its humanitarian partners and we do not ask the ICRC to segregate funds as it is fully aware of its obligations to different donors. We have flagged and will continue to flag the UK’s position to the ICRC.
My noble friend asked about the engagement with the United States on this matter, as did other noble Lords. DfID officials are in regular dialogue with both USAID and US-based international NGOs with regard to improving access to sexual and reproductive health services and rights. This includes reducing recourse to unsafe abortion. We recognise the challenges faced by the US Administration in reopening the interpretation of the Helms amendment, but I am happy to assure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we will flag this debate, with its forceful concerns expressed about the reproductive rights of women raped in armed conflict, to US colleagues. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, that we are exploring further the Norwegian position with our counterparts there. I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, of our commitment to UN Women. We recognise the importance of that, and DfID has been a strong supporter since the very beginning.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, about research. There is a fund of up to £25 million for research and innovation, which will focus on the prevention response to violence against women and girls in conflict and humanitarian situations. However, I think that the noble Baroness was asking whether research was needed in order to produce clarification. I trust that I have produced the clarification that noble Lords were seeking.
This debate goes to the heart of our responsibility to protect women and girls around the world, and especially when they are at their most vulnerable in places and times of conflict. As we have heard, rape is so terribly often used as a weapon of war. I assure noble Lords that the UK will continue to work to prevent violence against women and girls and to improve access to appropriate non-discriminatory medical care including services for abortion care in situations of armed conflict.
Public Service Pensions Bill
(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
“Local Government Schemes: exclusion
Nothing in this Act shall be taken as allowing the Treasury to de-fund any individual fund in the Local Government Pension Scheme or to transfer the fund’s assets to HM Treasury and the liabilities to the ONS national accounts.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, this is an amendment that reflects some of the anxiety in local government and other circles about what the Treasury’s ultimate intention is in relation to public sector schemes. The Minister may be gratified to know that I do not expect him to accept the amendment wholesale tonight, either in this form or in some other form within this Bill, but I hope that he will give sufficiently reassuring words that the matter dealt with in the amendment is not the intention, and that there will be some way of making sure that it is not.
The anxiety stems from a number of things. We all know that the Treasury likes to control things. We also know that the Treasury does not like to see the possibility of costs that it does not control but that will count against the public borrowing requirement—albeit that that definition is ludicrously wide compared to most other countries. The Treasury also likes to see large sums on the asset balance sheet. On the other hand, the Treasury likes to deal with liabilities on a pay as you go basis rather than on a long-term funded basis. When looking at the attempt to corral the local government scheme into the same box as the unfunded public sector schemes, where the funding has gone up and down significantly over the decades, all these things might suggest the possibility that if any of the 89 different local government schemes were seen episodically to be failing, the Treasury might take the opportunity to step in and take it over, or perhaps to take over large chunks of the local government scheme.
Local government schemes consist of 89 different schemes, mostly local authority. By and large, they are well run, professionally organised and based on very solid professional advice, and generally they take steps to ensure that the income is changed if the long-term prospects alter significantly. But, of course, in the current economic climate there has been some serious turmoil. The local government scheme of which I was recently chair went from a funding position of 114% down to something under 70% and back up again to 90% in the past four years, which was almost entirely due to the way in which the world stock markets have gone down, with the value of equities and other stocks, and also—and I shall return to this in a subsequent amendment—to the way in which liabilities are valued. At times, it looked as if there was danger of those funds not being sustainable even in the short term.
There is a possibility of the Treasury not liking to face the possibility that it is seen as the underwriter of last resort, which currently it is, although I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who is not in his place, is attempting to remove that position later on in the Committee’s consideration. In reality, there have been no historic examples of default, but nevertheless there could be an opportunity of the Treasury stepping in, saying that the fund is badly run and that it is going to take it over, count the assets against central government assets and push the liabilities into the long grass.
There is a precedent for this situation, and a rather large one—that of the Post Office pension scheme. Both Governments are guilty of this, although the current Government actually implemented it. It was a very large scheme and, because of previous pension holidays taken by the Royal Mail pension fund, it was somewhat underfunded. Somewhat to our surprise, the Treasury agreed to take over the scheme directly. Part of that was to soften people up for privatisation, but another part of it was that it immediately got the Treasury £26 billion on the asset side of their balance sheet, whereas the liabilities, although they are still there legally and contractually and will have to be met, actually disappear from that balance sheet in the general fund.
If that could happen in a scheme as large as the Post Office scheme—and there is the possibility of a predatory Treasury down the line—then it could happen in relation to failing or allegedly failing local government schemes. The reality is that the boards of the local schemes and the national board would need to take steps within the LGPS to ensure that such schemes did not fail, or that if they failed they would merge with other local government schemes. That responsibility to intervene at the first sign of danger rests within the LGPS, not with the Treasury.
There is a serious suspicion that the blurring between an independent local authority-based wholly funded scheme, and this scheme’s provisions for greater Treasury surveillance, could go further, and that it could allow the Treasury to seize control of a local authority fund in the circumstances that I have described, but possibly in other circumstances as well. I have put this amendment down for the resolution of that suspicion. As I have said, I do not necessarily expect the Minister to accept this amendment, but I would like, in the course of either this or the next stage, an unequivocal declaration or a different form of words in the Bill that make it clear that the Treasury would not act in this way in relation to local government schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide assurance that the Treasury could not take away the assets of the pension funds or place the liabilities of the local government pension schemes on to the Government’s books. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the Government have no intention of doing so, and for a very good reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, considered the funded nature of the local government pension schemes and concluded that they should continue on that basis, and we agree. Local authority pension funds allow local government to manage its liabilities efficiently and ensure the solvency of the scheme both at a local level and as a whole. Moving to an unfunded model in the local government schemes would risk greater volatility in the costs, and therefore the demands on local taxpayers. In practice, taking on the assets of local government schemes would also mean taking on the liabilities, which would have a greater cost for central government and would therefore make no economic sense. Neither would winding up any of the existing funds make economic sense. That would cost the Government far more in making provision to secure annuities for rights already built up than it would gain the Government in terms of assets.
Furthermore, there are significant legal barriers. It took explicit powers in primary legislation to move the pension assets of the Royal Mail. There are no such explicit powers in this Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, any suggestion that the Government took on the pension fund of the Royal Mail in order to improve the figures, knowing as they did that they were incurring a very significant liability in the long term, is simply misplaced. It was, as the noble Lord put it—although I would not put it in quite the same terms—part of the necessary process of preparing the Royal Mail for privatisation.
When debating closure we have said in your Lordships’ House, in another place and outside Parliament that we have no intention of winding up the existing schemes. Indeed, we have amended the Bill on a number of occasions to allay these fears. The Government, therefore, have no intention of defunding the local government pension schemes, for the very good reasons that I have set out.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that any fears that he might have about the LGPS funds are entirely unfounded, and that this amendment is therefore not necessary.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which provides a fair degree of assurance. I will read the precise words then consult colleagues in local government as to whether that is sufficient. However, I thank him for his reply. I agree that the Post Office was a bit more complicated, but on the other hand there are suspicions out there, and it is part of the distrust to which reference was made earlier that such fears are around. The Government have to ensure that they pacify those fears. I hope that the Minister’s words will help to do that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33, I will refer also to the other amendments with which it is grouped.
Clauses 4 and 5 provide that scheme regulations must provide for a person to be responsible for managing or administering a public service pension scheme set up under Bill powers, and any other statutory scheme connected with it. In the case of the LGPS, the agreement reached between the unions, the LGA and the DCLG specified the need for a national board, as proposed in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, in order to give it a national focus in line with the treatment of other public service schemes. The national scheme board would have concerns for the scheme at national level, with a central focus to ensure efficient and effective overall management of the LGPS. Therefore, the LGPS effectively requires two boards—one at the national level and one at the local scheme level—to ensure effective separation of responsibilities.
We need to clarify this. In commitments given in another place and elsewhere, the Government have already attempted to clarify that this would indeed be the case. However, we would like to see the clause amended or strengthened to separate clearly the role of scheme manager and scheme board—that is the other point of these amendments—which would be achieved through Amendments 36 and 44. Separating the roles through these amendments should provide for more robust management of any conflict of interest. As I say, the Government have reassured me to some extent on this point. It is possible that government Amendment 45, which we will come to later, will provide some clarity in terms of the distinction. I will respond to the Minister, if necessary, when we reach that amendment.
Amendment 126 to Clause 23 deals with contributions to other pension arrangements. Clause 23, as drafted, implies that there is an ability for scheme employers to make contributions to private occupational schemes virtually as an alternative to the schemes set up under the Bill. If that were a general power, it could result in scheme employers offering those schemes rather than the LGPS, which would have serious consequences, including knock-on effects on contributions for employers and members of the LGPS. There would also be demands from other employers running separate schemes for crystallisation payments from those who have transferred or did not take up the LGPS scheme. The ability of employers to pay into other schemes is available in exceptional circumstances but this clause as drafted seems to make it a general provision. However, I think that it needs to be available only in exceptional circumstances, as it is under the existing regulations.
Amendment 127 deals with Schedule 8 and revaluation methodology. The schedule contains relatively minor and consequential amendments to primary legislation. Pensions payable by the LGPS are revalued using the scheme set out in the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. The amendment is required to enable the same methodology to be used for revaluation during service to continue once a scheme member is in receipt of their pension. That would provide the clarification needed to ensure that members’ benefits are revalued correctly in retirement. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, my noble friend has made some interesting and important points. One of the issues that really need to be faced, on Report in particular, is that in the negotiations that followed the Hutton report, Local Government Employers, the unions and the Government managed to formulate what could be called a “deal” about the way in which pensions were to go forward. Regrettably, elements of that deal do not appear in the Bill. In response to challenges in the Commons, Ministers gave assurances on a number of occasions but, given that this is expected to be a Bill lasting 25 years, covering several Administrations, these assurances should be in the Bill. A deal is a deal and simply going back to assurances is, at least partially, reneging on the deal.
Having said that in support of my noble friend, I will now speak to Amendment 35, which is also in this group. My noble friend Lord Hutton’s report recommends:
“Every public service pension scheme (and individual LGPS Fund) should have a properly constituted, trained and competent Pension Board, with member nominees, responsible for meeting good standards of governance including effective and efficient administration.”
One can understand why my noble friend recommended this given that, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has commented, there are 89 local government pension funds, with over £150 billion of assets under management, as well as the other pension schemes. Clause 1 currently provides for the establishment of a pension board for a scheme but leaves it completely unclear whether there is a requirement for one pension board for each fund in the Local Government Pension Scheme. Under the clause as drafted, it would be perfectly possible to have one pension board for all 89 pension funds—that is not ruled out. The Minister in another place said the combined effects of Clauses 4 and 5 rule this out. I have studied these clauses carefully and have taken advice, and have been assured that they do not rule this out. Indeed, one could have various combinations of boards servicing the 89 LGPS funds and other schemes.
Given that, as the Hutton report says,
“all scheme members deserve to know that their scheme is being properly run”,
it is entirely desirable to make clear in the Bill that a pension board for each pension fund is a prerequisite, both as a measure of efficient management and to give confidence to the members of individual schemes that they have a board that they can identify with and have access to. I will, in due course, ask the Minister to consider carefully taking on board Amendment 35 to give suitable clarity to what is meant by the establishment of pension boards and ensure that there is a pension board for each scheme.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has proposed Amendments 33, 36, and 44, which are concerned with ensuring that there is a scheme manager and pension board for each local authority pension fund. The amendments also provide for national pension boards in the Local Government Pension Scheme. Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raises much the same issue.
Both noble Lords seek assurance that there must be a pension board for each local authority pension fund within the local government scheme. I can reassure them on that point. Police, fire and local authorities will be scheme managers in respect of their part of the pension schemes for those workforces. The effect of Clause 5 is that the scheme regulations must provide for a pension board to assist each scheme manager in that role. It follows that there will be a pension board for each scheme manager.
Noble Lords may say that Clause 4 does not in explicit terms require there to be a scheme manager for each local pension fund, and hence a pension board also for that fund, but that is the purpose of Clause 4(5). The intention is also clear from Clause 5(6). This anticipates that the scheme managers of locally administered funds will be the local authority or a committee of the authority.
Amendment 36 is also concerned with requiring national pension boards to be established in the Local Government Pension Scheme for England and Wales, and the one for Scotland.
Lord Eatwell
I ask the noble Lord to return to the point he just made, because it is similar to a point made in another place. There is a scheme manager for each scheme. Clause 5(1) states:
“Scheme regulations for a scheme under section 1 must provide for the establishment of a board with responsibility for assisting the scheme manager”.
That does not suggest that there should be a board associated with each scheme manager. It does not say that, but a board might be just one gargantuan board that serves a variety of scheme managers. I quite understand that the noble Lord is sympathetic on this issue and wishes to assure us that that is what the Government mean but it is not what they say.
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is what we mean and I am advised that that is what the clause says. I will look at it again and if there is any further clarification that I can give the noble Lord, I will write to him. I think that we just have a difference of view about what the current provision states.
Amendment 36 would require national pension boards to be established in the Local Government Pension Scheme for England and Wales, and the one for Scotland. We cannot support these amendments but, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be aware, we have tabled Amendment 45 to deal with that issue, which we will consider in due course. When we do, I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded of it.
Amendment 115 concerns Schedule 7, which sets out the mechanism to maintain the final salary link for service in the current schemes. The schedule is designed to allow public servants’ final salary benefits to remain fixed to their final salary on leaving pensionable public service, even after they enter the new schemes. This was a key part of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, and a vital aspect of the reform deal for public servants. The mechanism also includes provisions for this link to be maintained even if the person moves between public service schemes or leaves public service for periods of not more than five years. Again, this is exactly in keeping with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, proposed.
This approach allows public servants the flexibility, for example, to take carer’s leave or gain experience in other sectors, without being inhibited from doing so by the detrimental impact on their final salary pensions. This is consistent with a wider objective to modernise public service terms and conditions, and it smoothes movement between different sectors and departments to enable the sort of skills-sharing that is required for a modern-day workforce. Amendment 115 seeks to remove this flexibility for those in the Local Government Pension Scheme by stipulating that the link is maintained only if the person remains in pensionable service for the purpose of the new local government scheme.
I am not sure that the amendment delivers on its purpose but, none the less, I must oppose it on principle. It would leave in place a movement barrier that we wish to dislodge and be inherently unfair to local government workers. It would lead to the unfair scenario where a teacher who moves to local government for a period before returning to teaching would maintain their final salary link, whereas a local government worker who moves to the education sector before returning to local government could lose their final salary link. That would not be right.
I reassure the House, however, that the Bill does not impose any new liabilities on the funded local government scheme while a person is not in local government scheme employment. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, the link applies only where someone who leaves the local government scheme transfers their rights to benefits from the old scheme, and therefore the liability, to their new employer’s final salary scheme.
Amendment 126 seeks to remove local government pension schemes from the powers set out in Clause 23, which allows pension payments to be made outside schemes that will be established under Clause 1. Although the pensions that will be made under the Bill will continue to be among the best, not every last person working in the public sector will want to be part of them. In these circumstances, it is important that alternative provision can be made so that public servants can continue to save for their retirement, where the scheme manager or employer considers this appropriate. The clause therefore allows for pension payments, or other benefit payments, to be made outside the new schemes to people who are entitled to join the schemes made under this Bill.
An example of an alternative arrangement would be the employer making contributions to an individual’s personal pension scheme where that individual is on a short-term contract and does not wish to be part of the public service scheme for just that short period. This is nothing new across public service schemes as a whole. The power already exists for some of the current schemes; for example, in Section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
However, I recognise that there is some concern, expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and no doubt shared by others, that these powers may be used to override eligibility for the schemes that will be established under Clause 1. I can reassure noble Lords that the clause will not allow eligibility for the main scheme benefits to be overridden. The scheme regulations will spell out who is eligible to be a member of a pension scheme made under the Bill. This scheme could not be used to remove these eligibility rights. In short, while this clause could allow alternative arrangements to be offered, where these suit an individual’s personal circumstances, it does not allow schemes and employers to make such alternative arrangements mandatory. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that any fears he has about the operation of Clause 23 with regard to the LGPS are entirely unfounded, and that this amendment is not necessary.
Finally, Amendment 127 seeks to remove the reformed Local Government Pension Scheme from the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. This Act provides for the indexation of pensions in payment across the public sector. The amendment would mean that the provisions of that Act would not apply to the CARE element of the LGPS, instead, indexation of CARE pensions in payment would be linked to the revaluation of active member benefits, which is provided for under this Bill.
I understand that this amendment has been tabled to overcome a perceived problem with the Pensions (Increase) Act, which creates difficulties for uprating pensions in the year the member retires. However, this amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is undesirable in a piece of framework legislation such as this to carve out one particular scheme for special treatment. This is especially the case when the revaluation of CARE benefits in the year of retirement is a calculation that will have to be made by all the new CARE schemes established under the Bill.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that the Government already run a CARE scheme: the Nuvos section of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, which makes provisions for civil servants. This issue was addressed when that scheme was introduced, and is dealt with via the scheme rules. Should the noble Lord care to look at the detail of this, I refer him to rule C.9—the retirement index addition—in the 2007 rules for the existing civil service scheme. The reformed schemes set up under this Bill, including the LGPS, will also be able to overcome any technical difficulties with appropriate provisions in scheme regulations. There is no need to make any further provision in the Bill to allow them to do so.
With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, on that last point, I should be grateful to receive a letter or note from the Minister or his department because that is different from what is understood by those who currently administer the scheme. I agree that it is a minor point but, as a minor point, it should really be dealt with in the scheme regulations rather than in the Bill. Therefore, if the noble Lord would be good enough to let me have more detail on that, I should be grateful.
I have a similar point to make in relation to payments into other schemes. In all the circumstances that the Minister referred to, I am in favour of what local government schemes already do, which is to provide for payments into other schemes for the purposes of temporary absence, short-term contracts and all sorts of other things. However, that is not part of the scheme; it is an arrangement between the individual and so forth. The fear or concern about Clause 23 is that it is written in very general terms. It is written as though a local authority or the pension manager thereof could, as a matter of course, offer an alternative parallel scheme to the local government scheme, which would undermine the finances of the local government scheme. I can envisage circumstances where that might happen. That does not mean that there should not be provision for somebody who wishes to invest in a different scheme themselves, and of course there will also be the complication of automatic enrolment. Therefore, there are circumstances where the current situation allows employers to invest in other schemes, which they do. My concern relates to the generality of the clause and I should be grateful if the Minister could have another brief look at that.
As far as the main amendments in this group are concerned, like my noble friend Lord Eatwell, it seems to me that if the Government mean that there should be two levels of board in a local government scheme, they should say so and make that quite explicit. Of course, there is an additional problem if this matter is left vague. If there is a national scheme, then what happens at local level could vary. There is another problem which I think probably exists in the current local government scheme to some extent because it is unclear. There should be a clear separation between the employer as the employing authority and the body and personnel that deal with the management of the local scheme. That is required by the private sector regulations under the Pensions Act and by the European directive. If what goes on at the second tier is left vague, there is the possibility that the employing authority will simply decide that it will also be the administrator of the scheme. If it is a committee of the authority with clear powers, that is a different matter, and that is often the case with local authority schemes, but there has to be a differentiation. I fear that if we do not spell out in the primary legislation that that is the structure that we are looking for, then a range of possibilities could ensue at the local level.
I have also looked at Amendment 45, which seems to deal with some of the anxieties behind the non-stipulation of a two-tier board scheme, but it does not deal with all of them. I am also somewhat mystified by the fact that the amendment refers to an “advisory board”. What we and the Hutton report are looking for is a governance board, and to call it an advisory board immediately dilutes its potential role. I could not find a lot wrong with the wording of the proposed new clause in the amendment but the heading made me feel that it did not fulfil all that I was hoping for from the Government. Perhaps the noble Lord could ask his officials to get in touch with me and with the LGA to provide some clarification on this front. In any case, I would advise him to be clearer in the terminology in relation to the two boards. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“(1) Scheme regulations for a scheme under section 1 must provide for the establishment of a board, at least one third of whose members must be members of the scheme or their representatives, with responsibility for assisting and making recommendations to the scheme manager in relation to the following matters.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, this amendment has two purposes. The first is to put into the Bill the requirement that pension boards have at least one-third of their members who are members of the underlying scheme. The second is to make certain that these pension boards universally have some influence and are not entirely to be emasculated by the scheme regulators. The drafting of the Bill leaves the exact powers and responsibility of the boards to be defined by the scheme regulators, saying only that the boards are to assist the scheme manager. As I said at Second Reading, the word “assist” is virtually meaningless in this context and that is why this amendment also gives a board the explicit power to make recommendations to the scheme manager.
The question of scheme members being members of their scheme’s pension board should not be controversial; as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned a moment ago, recommendation 17 of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, says explicitly that every public service pension scheme and individual LGPS fund should have a properly constituted, trained and competent pension board with member nominees. The Government agree with this principle. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that Lord Hutton recommended that each pension scheme local board should have a pension board and the board should include member representatives. We agree.
Lord Hutton, on pages 125 and 126 of his report, explains what factors led to this recommendation. He notes that there are currently boards where members are sometimes not formally represented. He notes with approval that the majority of local authorities have some form of member representation in their governance arrangements. However, he also noted that it seemed that only a very small minority of member representatives had full voting rights. He quotes evidence given to his commission by UNISON that,
“by 2009 only seven of the 89 England and Wales Fund authorities had allowed voting by scheme members of pension committees”.
That is not representation, that is tokenism. It is still tokenism even after Government Amendment 40 in this group. All this amendment does is to require that members of a scheme must be represented on the scheme’s pension board. It is entirely silent about the size of this representation.
This whole issue of size of member representation on pension boards was discussed in some detail at Committee stage in the Commons. There, Chris Leslie proposed an amendment that would have resulted in one-third of pension board members being scheme members. The Government declined to agree. The Minister said:
“There is no objection in principle to having scheme-member-nominated representation on pension boards. That is our policy. Our objection is to applying a private sector standard to the public sector schemes without considering whether that is appropriate given the different structures and contexts of public schemes. Unlike the private sector, the public schemes span large work forces and multiple employers”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Service Pensions Bill Committee, 8/11/12; cols 267-68.]
This refers to a provision in the Pensions Act 2004; Section 241 of this Act requires pension boards in the private sector to have at least one-third of their members to be members of the underlying scheme. The Minister’s arguments, that what the private sector is forced to do by statute is not appropriate as a statutory provision for the public sector, seems to me to be on very weak ground. I would specifically ask the Minister to explain in detail why we can happily have a one-third rule in statute for private pension schemes but not for public pension schemes.
In the Commons, in Committee, the Government attempted to resolve the argument over the size of member representation in part by saying:
“I can tell the hon. Gentleman that for various schemes, there is already extensive work going on draft schemes and draft policies … Once he sees that, he will see that a lot of the concerns that he understandably has about representation will be addressed”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Service Pensions Bill Committee, 8/11/12; col. 269.]
The Minister said he was happy to release some of those drafts. Could I ask the noble Lord the Minister to make those drafts also available to this House to help us in our deliberations? It may be that, as Sajid Javid said, these drafts will in fact help. But until we can see and discuss them, I think that the Minister must explain from first principles why it is wrong to guarantee significant member representation on pension boards by writing this requirement on to the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
My Lords, if this amendment were to be agreed I could not call Amendment 35 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I identify with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said on that issue. In doing so, I shall speak to my amendment about the European directive, which is related to the structure and governance of schemes. In view of the time, I shall give the short version because it is a rather technical issue.
Of course the European directive was intended to have a minimum EU-wide standard for security of benefits, but that was not its sole objective. It was also aimed at improving standards of management and allowing pension fund schemes to play a full part in investment markets. All funded schemes should meet these objectives whether government guaranteed or not.
On the question of legal separation, at present the funds in England and Wales of the Local Government Pension Scheme are not legally separated. They are under the control of the councils that administer them. Most are run by a council committee under local authority legislation. On the issue of the Local Government Pension Scheme meeting the requirements of Article 18, the article states:
“Member States shall require institutions located in their territories to invest in accordance with the ‘prudent person’ rule and in particular in accordance with the following rules … The assets shall be invested in the best interests of members and beneficiaries. In the case of a potential conflict of interest, the institution, or the entity which manages its portfolio, shall ensure that the investment is made in the sole interest of members and beneficiaries”.
Therefore, the Local Government Pension Scheme has its own investment regulations. They do not contain any requirement to the effect of the prudent person rule or to invest in the best interests of scheme members and so are non-compliant with the directive in this respect.
Let me make clear that I am not making any outright criticism of the Local Government Pension Scheme. It has been well run and has the trust of its members. I am aware, of course, that the Minister has said that, in his view, the Government are already fully compliant with the directive. The previous Government, which implemented these articles, also believed that they were fully compliant. I simply make the point that I do not think that is entirely accurate.
The investment regulations of the Local Government Pension Scheme do not contain any requirement to the effect of the prudent person rule or to invest in the best interests of scheme members and so they are non-compliant. Even with the benefit of the directive’s existing legal framework, which is not present in the Local Government Pension Scheme, Parliament has seen the need to provide further protection for members’ interests in particular by requiring the appointment of member-nominated trustees or trustee directors, imposing obligations to provide information to members, requiring trustees to be informed and trained so that they understand their responsibilities, and requiring trustees to appoint professional advisers, whose duty it is to act only for them in situations where there may be a conflict of interest with the employer imposing restrictions on the amount of permissible investment in the employer.
The position under the Local Government Pension Scheme, as matters stand, is completely different. The equivalent of the trustee is the administering authority, which is likely to be a major employer in relation to the fund it manages. Not only that, all decisions taken about investing the fund are taken by councillors, officers and employees of the administering authority or representatives of other employer bodies. There is no provision in the legislation which replicates the duty that trustees owe to their beneficiaries. On the face of the legislation as it stands, therefore, there is nothing to stop the administering authority from taking decisions on investments which prefer its interests and the interests of other employers over the interests of members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. My amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme should address the provisions of the IORP directive.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, before speaking to the amendments in this group tabled in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, perhaps I may associate myself most heartily with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. That should not be surprising as the first part of my Amendment 41 is virtually exactly the same as his amendment, but I must say that he put the argument beautifully. The idea that one could not accept the notion that one-third of pension board members are nominated by members of the scheme seems extraordinary. One-third is a lower limit which should certainly be accepted.
On the pension fund board which I have the honour of chairing there is one independent member; namely, myself. Otherwise one half of the remaining members are nominated by the members of the scheme and the other half by the employer. It is just under 50% because of one independent member. If that can be the case in what is, I hope, a harmonious pension scheme, I do not see why it cannot be appropriate for public sector schemes. The argument that the public sector is widely spread over different locales and can cover lots of different activities is clearly spurious as a private scheme for a very large company would be doing the same thing. That is the argument which was presented in another place, but it has been dismissed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and he was absolutely right to do so. It really has no substance at all.
I shall deal briefly with the amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 38 is all about transparency and effective governance. Under Clause 6(2)(c) pension boards are obliged to publish information about,
“matters falling within the board’s responsibility”.
As we can see in Clause 5(2), these include compliance with a whole series of aspects of the scheme’s regulations, whether it be an unfunded scheme, a defined contribution scheme or, indeed, a funded scheme with respect to its investment strategy. All the amendment seeks to do is ensure that the financial information associated with the running of the scheme is available to the board members so that they can comply with the requirements set out elsewhere in the Bill. If they do not have all the financial information they need, how can they fulfil the responsibility of ensuring that the scheme complies with regulations and other legislation relating to governance? Surely having knowledge of the financial structure and oversight thereof is key to this. We learnt from the Financial Services Bill that oversight does not mean control of but simply access to information about, so if this Bill is to be consistent with that Bill, oversight here would mean access to information that will allow the board to fulfil its responsibilities.
Amendment 39 similarly is devoted to transparency and requires that a policy governing the appointment of board members should be published. High quality board members are absolutely essential if public service pension schemes are to be well run. It is vital that the process for appointment is clear and well considered. It is therefore important that this is a transparent process so that members are reassured as to the quality of their board members. This will also promote fairness in appointments. Given that under Clause 5(4) scheme managers have an obligation to ensure that board members do not have any conflicts of interest, a clear and open appointment process with established criteria for appointment will aid scheme managers in fulfilling that statutory obligation. All Amendment 39 does is say, “Publish your policy on your appointment so that everybody knows what the criteria are, how they can apply, and so on”.
Regarding Amendment 41, I have already referred to the part which deals with the one-third of board members, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has put it better than I could. Amendment 41 also includes the requirement that there be one independent member. It is enormously valuable to have independent members, who often have professional expertise, to assist on pension fund boards. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, made it clear that it would be desirable for pension boards to have independent members. The amendment seeks to ensure that the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, is taken into account.
Finally, Amendment 42 uses exactly the same definition of member nominee and independent board member as the Pensions Act 2004 and provides for a nomination process for board members. In that respect, it simply mirrors the Pensions Act 2004, and in particular mirrors the definition of an independent board member, referring specifically to the nature of their independence. The criteria set out in Amendment 42 are those which we have already accepted for the private sector, and it seems entirely appropriate that they should fit here. These amendments are to provide transparency, which will enable the boards to do their jobs better. Transparency over an appointments process and a nomination process will enable the boards to be better constructed.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I begin by speaking to government Amendment 40. It deals with matters related to those that have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Eatwell. Amendment 40 delivers the Government’s policy commitment for scheme members to be represented on pension boards. Our amendment explicitly requires scheme regulations to provide for members of a public pension scheme, and any connected scheme, to be represented on the pension board. Unlike the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Eatwell, it does not specify a proportion of board members that must be member representatives, nor does it say how member representatives are to be appointed to the pension board.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked whether draft regulations could be made available to Members of your Lordships’ House. I confirm that we will make them available to all Members who have spoken in the debate today. In our view, these matters are rightly left to scheme regulations. In their amendments, the noble Lords have broadly sought to replicate the requirements that relate to boards of trustees in other occupational pension schemes. Amendments 34 and 41 seek to adopt the requirement for at least one-third of board members to be members or their representatives in trust-based schemes. Amendment 42 seeks to adopt a similar process for nominating member representatives to the board.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked me to explain our rationale from first principles. I am not sure whether I shall go quite that far back, but I will attempt to explain it. We believe that the amendments fail to recognise the major differences between the public service pension schemes and the trust-based schemes that these provisions were designed for. For example, the effect of Amendment 42 would be to require Norfolk County Council to allow every member of the local government pension scheme in England and Wales, directly or indirectly, to participate in the selection of member representatives to their pension boards. The same would apply to each of the other 88 funds in the Local Government Pension Scheme. This is clearly unintended but it serves to highlight the fact that the public service schemes are indeed different. A one-size-fits-all process for nominating member representatives to pension boards would not, in our view, be appropriate, nor is it appropriate to set a quota. The public schemes are not directly comparable to trust-based pension schemes. The public service schemes are significantly bigger than most occupational pension schemes and many involve multiple and diverse employers. For example, there are over 5,000 employers in the LGPS in England and Wales. Those are not just local councils but also local charities and housing associations. That broad range of interests needs to be represented on the public service pension boards too.
Consequently, our view is that imposing a requirement for one-third of pension board members to be members, or their representatives, could lead to them being the largest interest group on the pension boards. Of course this is not an issue in private sector schemes, where there is often only a single employer to accommodate on the trustee board. The Bill already provides the necessary flexibility for the details to be agreed in each scheme, following consultations with members and other interests. This approach will allow the pension board membership to be tailored to the varying structures of each of the public schemes. The pension boards will then be able to appropriately reflect the range of employees and employers in each scheme. We believe that this is the right approach.
One of the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, relates to public pension boards having an independent member. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, did indeed say in his report that it was important that pension boards include independent members. Although we accept that independent members can play a role in pension boards, we do not see a case for mandating each pension board to have such members. The reasons for mandating independent trustees in the private sector do not, in our view, flow through to the public sector schemes. Independent trustees reinforce the separation of pension schemes from the employer in the private sector and, as we have discussed previously, we are not convinced that this is required in the public scheme.
Amendment 39 would require a scheme manager rather than scheme regulations to determine the policy governing the appointment of pension board members. Clause 5 provides that it is the scheme regulations that would provide for the establishment of a board. Within that, schemes are likely to set out the detail of a board appointment process in the scheme regulations. If schemes determine to delegate this matter to scheme managers, then scheme regulations could require the scheme manager to publish these matters. It would be wrong for the Bill to prejudge the outcome of scheme-level discussions about how to best constitute and appoint pension boards in each of the schemes.
Having said that, we agree with the sentiment of the amendment. Pension boards must be transparent and representative of the interests of stakeholders, both members and employers. That is why Clause 6 already requires the publication of details of pension board membership and the board’s responsibilities.
In responding to Amendment 37 from the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I hope she will not mind if I repeat what I said at Second Reading: the Government believe that the Local Government Pension Scheme,
“is fully compliant with Articles 8 and 18 of this directive. We believe this compliance is achieved by the high standard of legal security that applies to LGPS funds and benefits”.—[Official Report, 19/12/12; col. 1586.]
I am well aware that Unison has long argued that the scheme is not compliant with the European directive, and I recognise that it feels strongly on this issue, but we simply do not agree. The reasons why have been set out in a number of letters from Ministers to Unison over the past five years, not just the past two.
The previous Government implemented EU directive 41/2003 through the Pensions Act 2004. As that Act relates to the governance and administration of pension funds, that legislation is therefore already within the scope of Clause 5(2). I assure the noble Baroness that Amendment 37 is therefore not necessary. I hope that she will feel reassured and not press it at the appropriate time.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. This amendment was considered in another place and resisted on the grounds that its application would be inappropriate. One of the key concerns that we have with this amendment is that it seeks to give the pension board of a funded scheme responsibility for the oversight of investment management. The existence, performance or level of any local authority pension fund has no bearing on the benefits that members receive.
Lord Sharkey
I thank the Minister for the promise to give us sight of the draft scheme regulations; that might be very helpful. I continue to believe that it is a mistake to leave the number of member representatives to the scheme regulations. Who protects the interests of the scheme members as the regulations draw up the plan for these boards? Consultation does not do that. Consultation is very well and fine and should take place, but it does not necessarily protect the interests of the scheme members.
I also wonder what mechanisms will prevent or cure the non-voting tokenism identified in evidence by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I find that I am unconvinced, on the whole, by the Government’s responses on this issue. It is clear, however, that there is substantial concern in the Committee about this whole area and I expect that we shall return to the question on Report. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
“( ) requiring members of the scheme and any connected scheme to be represented on the board.”